Some Psychological Motivations For Fashion Opinion Leadership and Fashion Opinion Seeking

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/244007142
Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion leadership and

fashion opinion seeking
Article in Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management · January 2006

DOI: 10.1108/13612020610651105
CITATIONS READS
144 2,415
2 authors:
Laurent Bertrandias Ronald E. Goldsmith

Toulouse Business School Florida State University
39 PUBLICATIONS 291 CITATIONS 293 PUBLICATIONS 17,878 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Marketing Information Products View project
Brand Alliances View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Laurent Bertrandias on 23 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal
Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion
seeking
Laurent Bertrandias Ronald E. Goldsmith
Article information:
To cite this document:
Laurent Bertrandias Ronald E. Goldsmith, (2006),"Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion
leadership and fashion opinion seeking", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Downloaded by Université Toulouse 1 Capitole At 09:18 23 September 2015 (PT)
Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 25 - 40

Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020610651105
Downloaded on: 23 September 2015, At: 09:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7707 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Ronald E. Goldsmith, Ronald A. Clark, (2008),"An analysis of factors affecting fashion opinion leadership
and fashion opinion seeking", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol.
12 Iss 3 pp. 308-322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020810889272
Jiyun Kang, Haesun Park-Poaps, (2010),"Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion
leadership", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Iss 2 pp.
312-328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612021011046138
Ian Phau, Chang-Chin Lo, (2004),"Profiling fashion innovators: A study of self-concept, impulse buying and
Internet purchase intent", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8
Iss 4 pp. 399-411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020410559993
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:425170 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm
ACADEMIC PAPER Fashion opinion
Some psychological motivations

for fashion opinion leadership and
25
fashion opinion seeking
Laurent Bertrandias
Graduate School of Management, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France, and
Ronald E. Goldsmith
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose – To model the relationships between consumer need for uniqueness and attention to social
comparison information with fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 201 US undergraduate students were surveyed and
standard scales were used to measure consumer need for uniqueness, attention to social comparison
information, fashion opinion leadership, and fashion opinion seeking.
Findings – Both consumer need for uniqueness and attention to social comparison information were
positively related to fashion opinion leadership. Attention to social comparison information was also
positively related to fashion opinion seeking, but consumer need for uniqueness was negatively related
to fashion opinion seeking.
Research limitations/implications – The findings are limited to US consumers and the convenience
sample. Other limitations include the specific measures used, and the cross-sectional survey method
prevents one from making causal statements. The effects of other, unmeasured variables could not be
assessed.
Practical implications – Apparel marketers seeking to encourage opinion leaders to promote their
lines of new clothing might devise appeals emphasizing the social significance of the new products and
how they bestow uniqueness on their owners. Such appeals might be more effective than those not
stressing these psychological motivations. Appeals to consumers more likely to seek than to give opinions
might also stress the social significance of the clothing, but appeals to uniqueness might not be effective
with these consumers. Perhaps a belongingness appeal would be more effective.
Originality/value – These psychological concepts have not been studied very much in the
clothing/fashion product domain. They give new insights into the psychology of clothing opinion
leaders and opinion seekers.
Keywords Motivation (psychology), Consumer behaviour, Consumer research, Consumer psychology,
Fashion, United States of America
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Consumers influence each other in several ways. They copy each other’s behaviour;
they talk to each other, thereby exchanging information via casual conversations; and Journal of Fashion Marketing and
they seek and give opinions. Researchers recognize this last form of interpersonal Management
Vol. 10 No. 1, 2006
communication (opinion leadership and opinion seeking) as one of the most important pp. 25-40
word-of-mouth (WOM) influences on product sales and brand choice (Bristor, 1990; q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
Weimann, 1994). The study of WOM harkens back to the earliest days of US consumer DOI 10.1108/13612020610651105
JFMM research (American Tastemakers, 1959). Moreover, current interest in WOM is
10,1 evidenced by the appearance in recent years of several notable best-selling business
books (Gladwell, 2000; Keller and Berry, 2003; Rosen, 2000). Some even argue that
WOM is growing in importance and threatens to eclipse advertising as an influence on
product and brand choice (Donaton, 2003). Thus, the twin topics of opinion leadership
(OL) and opinion seeking (OS) are of keen importance to both consumer behaviour
26 theory and marketing management practice.
Research into WOM was stimulated by Katz and Lazersfeld’s (1955) study of
personal influence and continues unabated today. Topics include ways to harness
WOM in support marketing programmes, explanations for its power, and the best
ways to measure opinion leadership. Summaries of this research reveal demographic
and social descriptions of some of the characteristics of opinion leaders (Turnbull and
Meenaghan, 1980; Weimann, 1994). However, little attention has been paid to studying
the psychology of opinion leadership. This is even truer of opinion seeking. In fact,
Bristor (1990, p. 61) argued “. . . word of mouth research needs to place more emphasis
on investigating the receiver”. Some reasons for OL (e.g. product, self, message, and
other involvement; Dichter, 1966) and opinion seeking (e.g. risk reduction, saving time;
Bristor, 1990) have been described, but less known about the motivational psychology
of both OL and OS. This is especially true for fashion. Because preoccupation with
appearance seems to be directly linked to the personality of consumers (Marion, 2003),
this justifies the necessity to investigate the psychological nature of the motivations to
share or to seek information related to fashion clothing. Moreover, if marketing
management is to understand and make the best use of these concepts, we should
carefully study the motivational processes of WOM.
Because WOM is preeminently a social behaviour, we propose that psychological
characteristics relevant to social interaction are prime candidates for study. Thus, we
focus on two variables that describe individual reactions to the social environment:
consumer need for uniqueness (CNFU) and attention to social comparison information
(ATSCI). Consumer need for uniqueness is a specific manifestation of a more general
personality trait, need for uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1977). Consumers differ in
the extent to which they seek to acquire and display material goods that differentiate
them from others (Tian et al., 2001). Linked as it is to the concept of conformity, CNFU
deserves study as a motivating factor in WOM. The concept of ATSCI is derived from
the broader trait of self-monitoring, which refers to the extent that people observe their
own behaviour and adapt it to the behaviours of those around them (Snyder, 1974).
Consumers differ in the how much they pay attention to other consumers and how
much others influence their behaviour (Bearden and Rose, 1990).
Because we focused on the social context of WOM, our chosen product category was
clothing, a visibly consumed good high in social and symbolic significance. Moreover,
fashion clothing exposes consumers to other’s judgement and thus is a socially risky
product (Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975), so that the appropriate way to dress oneself
is likely to generate intensive flows of WOM communication. Thus, CNFU and ATSCI
were conceptualized and measured at the broad or global level of generality, but OL
and OS were conceptualized and measured as domain specific (clothing) constructs.
Consequently, the purpose of the present study was to test hypothetical associations
between CNFU and ATSCI with both fashion OL and OS. We chose these constructs
because:
.
they are argued to be important influences on a variety of consumer behaviours Fashion opinion
(Bearden and Rose, 1990; Tian et al., 2001), but not a lot is known of the scope of
their effects, especially as they bear on opinion leadership and opinion seeking;
.
OL and OS are important topics of concern for marketing management (Keller
and Berry, 2003), so that understanding more about the psychology of these two
behaviours may help marketing managers develop effective ways of influencing
the OL/OS exchange (e.g. Goldstein, 1999); and 27
.
both CNFU and ATSCI are consumer characteristics that can be incorporated into
marketing strategies that encourage opinion leaders to promote advertised brands.
We will suggest how they can be used to develop advertising that encourages
consumers to seek opinions as well.
Literature review
Opinion leadership and opinion seeking
Although both constructs are theoretically and practically important, the research
literature provides more information on opinion leaders than on opinion seekers. The
abundant opinion leadership research can be divided into three main streams:
identifying opinion leaders (see for example Ben-Miled and Le Louarn, 1994; Childers,
1986; Flynn et al., 1996; Goldsmith and Desbordes, 1991; King and Summers, 1970),
delineating their roles in health, fashion, agriculture, science (see Weimann, 1994, for a
review), and profiling them (e.g. Piirto, 1992). This last describes opinion leader
characteristics in order to understand their motivations and to improve marketing’s
appeals to them. This study is in keeping with this last stream.
Although opinion leadership has been defined in many ways, the concept is
consistently associated with influence (Flynn et al., 1996; Goldsmith and De Witt, 2003;
Rogers and Cartano, 1962), with information sharing (Eliashberg and Shugan, 1997;
Gilly et al., 1998; King and Summers, 1970), or both (Engel et al., 1995, p. 960). For
example, Rogers and Cartano (1962) define opinion leaders as individuals who exert an
unequal amount of influence on the decisions of others; but Eliashberg and Shugan
(1997) describe opinion leaders as persons who are regarded by a group, or by other
people, as having expertise and knowledge and who are considered as appropriate
sources for information and advice. The reasons why opinion leaders engage in
information sharing and why they influence others are important to companies that
want to target opinion leaders and to motivate positive word-of-mouth behaviours.
This concern raises the issue of antecedents of opinion leadership.
The main antecedent, which is supposed to explain the motivation to share
information and leaders’ influence, seems to be enduring product involvement (Cristau
and Strazzieri, 1996; Richins and Root-Shaffer, 1988; Venkatraman, 1990). Product
enthusiasts are interested in a product category even if they do not anticipate
purchases. Nevertheless, this variable is unable to explain exclusively the tendency to
share information and to influence others. Enduring involvement seems to act as a
necessary condition, but probably not a sufficient one. Other psychological
mechanisms must play a role (see Marshall and Gitosudarmo, 1995).
Fashion opinion leaders are a prime example of this social phenomenon. Indeed,
Weimann (1994) explains that they play the dual role of endorsers and information
sources. Their influence is both verbal and visual. In a seminal paper, Darden and
JFMM Reynolds (1972) tried to profile opinion leaders for men’s apparel fashions. They found
10,1 that characteristics such as fashion interest[1] or fashion venturesomeness are related
to opinion leadership. But in a synthesis on the subject, Weimann (1994) mentions that
researchers globally failed to associate personality traits with fashion leadership.
Opinion seeking is a more recent and still underdeveloped concept (Feick et al.,
1986). Some researches use very proximate but unsatisfactory concepts. Gilly et al.
28 (1998) propose a dyadic model to explain the influence of interpersonal sources and
integrate a variable called “word-of-mouth preference of seeker”; and, testing an
alternative model, Bansal and Voyer (2000) use the variable “word-of-mouth actively
sought”. These studies establish the importance of opinion seeking to the success of
many products, representing an adapted concept to convey those two ideas: the
intensity of interpersonal information search and the preference for interpersonal
sources. Opinion seeking is conceptualized as a subdivision of external information

search that happens when individuals search for advice from others when making a
purchase decision (Flynn et al., 1996; Punj and Staelin, 1983; Schmidt and Spreng,
1996). Opinion seeking represents the complementary side of opinion leadership (Feick
et al., 1986), but very little is known about fashion opinion seekers.
Opinion leadership and seeking motivations

Gatignon and Robertson (1986) consider interpersonal influence as an exchange
process and focus on both information givers and on information seekers.
Interpersonal information about products and brands clearly has value. Opinion
leaders look like particular information suppliers, and opinion seekers look like
particular information demanders; while both are involved in the process of
interpersonal information exchange. This raises the following questions: why opinion
leaders tend to share a lot of information, which kinds of rewards given by opinion
seekers are associated with this behaviour?
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964, pp. 88-97; Ekeh, 1974) centres on the concept of
reciprocity: an individual who supplies rewarding services to another obligates him. To
discharge this obligation, the second person must furnish benefits to the first. In the
context of information exchange, this theory illustrates the need to pay attention to
psychological profiles of both opinion leaders and seekers; indeed, it seems necessary to
understand the motivation of giving and seeking information in order to explain them
fully. Because incentives are not monetary, then, why do opinion leaders make the effort
to give information and why do opinion seekers especially concentrate their information
search on interpersonal sources? The answers should be found at a psychological level.
For opinion leadership, Chan and Misra (1990) propose an explanation pointing out that
opinion leaders need to be publicly individuated. Public individuation is a state in which
people feel differentiated from other people and chose to act differently from them
(Maslach et al., 1985). By giving advice, opinion leaders aim at standing out in group
situations and differentiating themselves. Their knowledge and interest in a particular
product class provide them the opportunity to satisfy individuation needs.
The motivations of opinion seekers stay practically unexplored. Flynn et al. (1996)
argue that opinion seeking satisfies a need that exceeds the simple willingness to
improve the product choice and to reduce perceived risk. For instance, Katz and
Lazarsfeld (1955) stated that the desire to enter a group or to enhance the relationship
with the group is a motivating factor for asking advices about products. Interpersonal
information seeking may also signify that individuals want to understand a group’s Fashion opinion
values and beliefs in order to comply with its norms. That is why some psychological
traits, especially expressing orientation toward others, should explain both the
tendency to give and to seek interpersonal information. This leads us to our next topic.
Consumer need for uniqueness

The concept of CNFU is based on Snyder and Fromkin’s (1977) theory of uniqueness. 29
According to this theory, people find a high level of similarity to others unpleasant and
seek to make themselves different, at least to some extent (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980).
Because need for uniqueness (NFU) is envisaged as a trait, it varies across individuals
and is likely to induce counterconformist behaviours. Counter-conformity can be defined
in reference to conformity, which represents the tendency to comply with group norms
(Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975). Counter-conformists do not try to be independent from

norms, but refuse congruence with norms. The need for uniqueness construct helps us to
understand this deviation: they want to maintain their identity, which is threatened by a
high-perceived level of similarity with others. The counter-onformist behaviour of
adoption results from the desire on one hand to perceive oneself as dissimilar with others
and on the other hand to be perceived as different by others.
In a consumer context, people can be motivated by counteracting norms and by
differentiating themselves, through their possessions and consumer choices. Tian et al.
(2001, p. 52) define CNFU as “the trait of pursuing differentness relative to others through
the acquisition, utilization, and disposition goods for the purpose of developing one’s
self-image and social image. Consumer goods used for satisfying counterconformity
motivation refer to product categories, brands and versions or style”. They conceptualize
CNFU as three-dimensional construct where each dimension represents a behavioural
manifestation. Through the first one, consumers express their counterconformity by
making creative choices; they do not seek to affirm their uniqueness by causing the
disapproval of others; on the contrary, their choices can be regarded as good and original
(Tian et al., 2001). Through the second one, consumers explicitly intend to deviate from
group norms and voluntarily chose products and brand likely to expose themselves to
social disapproval. The last behavioural intention simply indicates the desire to replace
products or change brands as soon as they become commonplace in order to maintain
uniqueness. This dimension is called avoidance of similarity.
Attention to social comparison information

Consumers’ propensity to use social cues to define their behaviour is likely to influence
the tendency to share or to seek information. Attention to social comparison
information comes from the revision of Snyder’s (1974) self-monitoring concept that
denotes the tendency to regulate one’s behaviour in order to present a particular self in
a social context (Snyder, 1987). People with a high self-monitoring level manage their
own behaviour using other’s expressions in the social setting as a guideline; whereas
low self-monitors conduct their behaviours from personal dispositions, beliefs, and
attitudes (Cramer and Gruman, 2002). The revised construct proposed by Lennox and
Wolfe (1984) called attention to social comparison information, focuses on one’s
concern about others’ reactions to her/his own behaviour. Consumers sensitive to social
comparison information are aware of and apprehensive about others’ reactions; they
strongly care about what other people think about them. This construct is correlated
JFMM with the fear of negative evaluationsðr ¼ 0:64Þ and neuroticism ðr ¼ 0:29Þ, which
10,1 denote social anxiety. Lennox and Wolfe (1984) also suggest that ATSCI may be a
useful measure to predict a durable disposition to conform.
In a consumer context, sources of social comparison information are multiple and
diverse. Bearden and Rose (1990) mention exterior appearance of others, verbal and
expressional reactions about the appropriateness of the consumption of certain
30 products or services made by significant referents, the social rewards and sanctions
system, and attributions about responses from group members to the consumer’s
behaviour. The main interesting property of this variable is its ability to moderate the
effects of normative influence on conformity (Bearden and Rose, 1990). People who
score high on ATSCI are more sensitive to normative social influence, they are more
aware of group norms and expectations, and they respond by adopting conformist
behaviours. At the opposite pole, people who have a low score on ATSCI seem more
able to resist normative influence and to keep their independence. Independence is
strictly opposed to conformity. Counter-conformity, however, represents a negative
reaction to normative influence. Independent people simply do not take into account
group norms, whereas counter-conformist people voluntarily adopt behaviours that
they expect to break the norms. Thus, if counter-conformity is a consequence of CNFU,
and tendency to conform is a manifestation of ATSCI, then CNFU and ATSCI should
be negatively associated (Tian et al., 2001). CNFU suggests a propensity to counteract
norms, whereas ATSCI implies a tendency to comply with norms. Moreover, Tian and
Bearden (2002) report a negative correlation of 2 0.23 between CNFU and ATSCI. We
propose the following hypothesis to replicate their findings:
H1. ATSCI and CNFU are negatively associated.
Consumer need for uniqueness and opinion leadership

Why would fashion opinion leaders possess a higher level of need for uniqueness?
Some contradictory results about opinion leaders’ conformism strengthen the
relevance of this question. On the one hand, some findings seem to show that opinion
leaders, in spite of their tendency to innovate and to stimulate changes in a social
system, are more conformist than the rest of the population (Marshall and
Gitosudarmo, 1995; Rogers, 1961). Gur-Arie et al. (1979) found that opinion leaders
were as conformist as non-leaders, even if their motivations are different. On the other
hand, Dawson and Ridgway (1987) reported a non-significant correlation between
fashion leadership and need for uniqueness, but note that leaders prefer fashion brands
that they view as unique. These results suggest that the general trait of need for
uniqueness is a poor descriptor of opinion leadership, suggesting instead that CNFU is
more appropriate: at a consumption level, this variable may be relevant to characterize
opinion leaders. Moreover, Chan and Misra (1990) found that opinion leaders tend to
score higher on the scales measuring public individuation, a state in which people feel
confident enough to individuate themselves (Maslach et al., 1985). This result seems to
show that difference seeking represents a motivation for opinion leadership.
The association between fashion leadership and CNFU should be related to leaders’
motivations to deviate from the norm and to the advantages resulting from the
adoption of counterconformist behaviours. Simonson and Nowlis (2000) studied the
reasons that people give to explain unconventional choices. They propose that the
effects of need for uniqueness on choices emerge when consumers have the opportunity
to explain their decisions and do not expect to be individually evaluated. This idea is Fashion opinion
very similar with the opinion leaders’ tendency to share information about products
and brands. According to these authors, unconventional choices should facilitate and
motivate communication about products: individuals are aware that original choices
draw more attention from others and tend to establish a kind of superiority of the
creative or original consumer, especially when s/he has the opportunity to talk about
his/her choices. Moreover, unconventional preferences seem more surprising and so, 31
attractive. The reasons why original products or brands are chosen are naturally
interesting and arouse curiosity. These arguments receive more attention from other
people and should exert a stronger impact on attitudes of information seekers
(Simonson and Nowlis, 2000). Consequently, opinion leaders’ influence should be
partially explained by the perceived originality or novelty of their product choices.
Briefly, higher scores of CNFU suppose a greater likelihood to make original and
unconventional brand and products choices that are more likely to be spotted by other
people. That is a possible explanation for:
.
fashion leaders’ selection as recommendation sources;
.
fashion leaders’ motivation to talk about products or brands; and
.
fashion leaders’ influence.
These arguments justify the following hypothesis:

H2. CNFU is positively associated with opinion leadership in fashion.
Consumer need for uniqueness and opinion seeking in fashion

In order to differentiate themselves from other, individuals with a high level of CNFU
need to search for information leading to behaviours that reinforce their uniqueness.
Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory points out that people generally have to use
others as reference points, especially when they want to avoid looking similar to other
persons. Following this first point, it would be reasonable to propose a positive
association between CNFU and fashion opinion seeking. Nevertheless, the motivations of
seekers seem to be opposed to the pursuit of uniqueness. Feick et al. (1986, p. 302)
mention that opinion seekers collect “information or opinions from interpersonal sources
in order to find out about and evaluate products, services, current affairs, or other areas
of interest”. Their main preoccupation is to make the right choice or to improve their own
product or brand evaluations. This first utilitarian motivation seems to be unrelated to
the search of counterconformity: when they ask for advice, opinion seekers are placed in
a position of accepting informational influence (Brown and Reingen, 1987; Duhan et al.,
1997). Furthermore, Flynn et al. (1996) suggest that opinion seeking can be analyzed as a
socialization process. By communicating about products and brands, seekers may find
an opportunity to create or to strengthen their ties with a group and they are implicitly
receptive to normative influences. The manifestation of normative influence acceptance
is clearly conformity to group norms and expectations (Bearden et al., 1989; Burnkrant
and Cousineau, 1975; Lascu and Zinkhan, 1999). Opinion seekers’ motivation is
essentially risk reduction, and for conspicuous products, social risk reduction; that is
why they should prefer conformist behaviours and avoid appearing too different. For
these reasons, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H3. CNFU and Opinion Seeking in fashion are negatively associated.
JFMM Attention to social comparison information, opinion seeking, and opinion leadership
Do opinion leaders and opinion seekers pay more attention to social comparison
10,1 information? Obviously, opinion seekers display an interpersonal orientation. To
collect information about products and services they have to observe other’s
behaviours. The preference for information from interpersonal sources also indicates
that seekers feel concerned for the social adequacy of their choices. Thus, opinion
32 seeking may be the explicit expression of an implicit anxiety. To alleviate social
anxiety, opinion seekers pay attention to others in order to find out how they should
behave. We propose our next hypothesis to test this notion:
H4. ATSCI and opinion seeking in fashion are positively associated.
The association between ATSCI and opinion leadership seems more complex. Fashion
leaders are expected to have higher levels of fashion innovativeness than most other
consumers (Flynn et al., 1996), which shows their ability to be detached from social
norms. Researchers, however, find opinion leaders in fashion to have higher levels of
self-monitoring than non-leaders (Davis and Lennon, 1985). Indeed, opinion leadership
involves the disclosure of his or her self-image to others by means or verbal and
nonverbal overt behaviour (Weimann, 1994); opinion leaders may regulate their own
behaviour in order to present a particular image of themselves. This finding is
theoretically congruent with Chan and Misra’s (1990) finding of a positive association
between opinion leadership and public individuation; if opinion leaders want to be
publicly differentiated, they must consciously or unconsciously adopt a self-controlled
behaviour. Chan and Misra (1990) also argue that the act of disseminating information
through word-of-mouth communication makes opinion leaders stand out among their
group and makes them “different” from the other members; but this dissemination
generates social anxiety, especially when their actions are publicly visible.
Consequently, when leaders chose to give information, they must be willing and
able to handle this anxiety because they might feel concerned by others’ reactions and
judgements. In order to alleviate this anxiety, opinion leaders might monitor the social
cues offered by others in order to avoid being rejected by them. Therefore, the
following hypothesis are suggested:
H5. ATSCI and fashion leadership are positively associated.
Method
The questionnaire contained multi-item scales to measure the focal constructs. To
enhance data quality, two items were placed within the other measures to guard
against bogus responding (Dollinger and DiLalla, 1996). One item read: “I have tried to
answer all of these questions honestly and accurately” and used a Likert response
format where 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree (of which an answer of less
than 6 warranted removal of the respondent). The second item read, “If you read this
item, do not respond to it” (for which any answer warranted removal). Of the original
209 questionnaires distributed, eight were removed either because these quality check
items caught bad respondents or because the questionnaire contained large sections of
missing data, leaving 201 respondents for the study.
We employed multi-item scales for the constructs that were used in earlier studies
and have proved to be valid and reliable measures of their respective variables. To
measure fashion leadership and opinion seeking in fashion, we used the scales
developed by Flynn et al. (1996). These were written to be domain specific measures of Fashion opinion
clothing OL and OS. Sample items read: “I often influence people’s opinions about
clothes”, and “I like to get others’ opinions before I buy a new clothing item”. We
measured consumer need for uniqueness with the 13-item scale developed by Tian et al.
(2001). An example item read: “As a rule, I dislike products or brands that are
customarily purchased by everyone”. We measured attention to social comparison
information with the 13 items shown in Bearden et al. (1989). One example read: “My 33
behaviour depends on how I feel others wish me to behave”.
The data came from a convenience sample of undergraduate students at a major US
university. Students in classes in consumer behaviour completed the questionnaire and
recruited one friend to do so also. Although this convenience sample limits
generalizability, the purpose of the study was to test theoretical relationships only and
not to make point and interval estimates of the mean scores on the scales, and so should
be appropriate for theory testing purposes (Calder et al., 1981). Moreover, the sample was
appropriate for the study because the product topic was clothing and fashionable wear, a
product category of interest to this student-aged sample; WOM plays an important role in
the diffusion of clothing styles (Evans, 1989; Vernette, 2004); and young people such as
these place a special emphasis on WOM, considering it more important than advertising
(Keller and Berry, 2003, pp. 8, 11).
The sample comprised 92 (45.8 per cent) men and 109 (54.2 per cent) women. Ages
ranged from 18 to 41 with a mean age of 21.5 years (SD ¼ 2.6). There were 153 (76.1 per
cent) white respondents, 15 (7.5 per cent) African-Americans, 29 (14.4 per cent)
Hispanics, and 4 (2 per cent) Asian-Americans. There was no statistically significant
ð p , 0:05Þ difference in mean age between the men and women[2].
Analyses and results

In preliminary analyses, common factor analysis followed by an oblique rotation was
used to confirm that each scale was either unidimensional (opinion leadership and
opinion seeking) or corresponded to the multi-factor structure described by the scale
developers. The factor loadings of all the items were at least 0.45 in size. After
appropriate item reversals, the individual items were summed to form scale scores so
that higher scores indicated higher levels of the respective constructs. Reliability
analysis was performed to compute coefficient alpha for each scale as estimates of
internal consistency. These results appear in Table I and are acceptably high,
exceeding the 0.70 recommendation of Nunnally (1978) and in fact exceeding the
average alpha coefficients reported in much of consumer research (Peterson, 1994).
Descriptive statistics appear in Table I.
The negative correlations in Table I of age with fashion OLðr ¼ 20:22Þ and OS
ðr ¼ 20:25Þ are to be expected given similar results reported by Summers (1970),
Coulter et al. (2000), and O’Cass (2000). Although not shown by the correlations, t-tests
of mean differences between men and women showed that the women consumers
reported higher levels of clothing opinion leadership than men, just as O’Cass (2000)
described. Thus, these preliminary results are largely in accord with previous studies,
lending confidence to our findings regarding the social influence variables.
The correlations also show that fashion leadership and opinion seeking in fashion
were positively correlated (0.24), a relationship predicted by Feick et al. (1986), depicted
in Keller and Berry’s (2003) discussion of influential Americans, and similar to those
JFMM
Variables CNFU ATSCI OL OS Age
10,1
Mean 56.9 50.5 25.8 24.2 21.5
Std. dev. 15.3 12.2 7.1 8.3 2.6
Low 20 16 8 6 18
High 98 85 41 42 41
34 Skewnessb 0.377 (0.172) 20.049 (0.172) 20.434 (0.172) 20.117 (0.172) 5.01 (0.172)
Kurtosisb 0.190 (0.341) 0.525 (0.341) 20.190 (0.341) 20.578 (0.341) 34.2 (0.341)
CNFU (0.91)a
ATSCI 20.23 * * (0.86)
OL 0.24 * * 0.18 * (0.89)
OS 20.33 * * 0.46 * * 0.24 * * (0.86)
Age 0.03 20.26 * * 20.22 * * 20.25 * * –
Table I. Notes: * * p , 0.01, * p , 0.05. a Cronbach’s alpha coefficients shown in parentheses on the diagonal;
b
Descriptive statistics and standard errors in parentheses. CNFU ¼ Consumer need for uniqueness; ATSCI ¼ Attention to
correlations social comparison information; OL ¼ Fashion opinion leadership; OS ¼ Fashion opinion seeking
reported by Flynn et al. (1996). This result verifies the idea that “. . . there’s often a
dialogue between people who spread the word about a product and those who are on
the receiving end” (Rosen, 2000, p. 81). The negative correlation between CNFU and
ATSCI ðr ¼ 20:23Þ supports H1 and is similar to that reported in Tian and Bearden
(2002). Apparently, consumers who are more likely than their peers to seek uniqueness
through purchasing are less likely to attend to social cues.
Linear regression tested the remaining hypotheses (see Table II). The approach used
was to test two sequential models. In the first model, the dependent variable, opinion
Independent variables B SE B t Part adj R 2 DR 2
Dependent variable: clothing opinion leadership

Step 1 0.153 * *
Age 2 0.523 0.182 20.190 22.91 * * 2 0.189
Sexa 2 4.829 0.928 20.340 25.21 * * 2 0.339
Step 2 0.238 * * 0.098 * *
Age 2 0.422 0.178 20.152 22.36 * * 2 0.146
Sexa 2 4.725 0.881 20.333 25.36 * * 2 0.331
CNFU 0.136 0.030 0.294 4.62 * * 0.285
ATSCI 0.104 0.038 0.178 2.71 * * 0.167
Dependent variable: clothing opinion seeking
Step 1 0.059 * *
Age 2 0.792 0.223 20.244 23.55 * * 2 0.244
Sexa 2 1.287 1.139 20.078 21.13 2 0.077
Step 2 0.270 * * 0.216 * *
Age 2 0.470 0.204 20.145 22.31 * * 2 0.139
Sexa 2 0.868 1.005 20.052 20.86 2 0.052
CNFU 2 .0128 0.034 20.237 23.81 * * 2 0.231
ATSCI 0.245 0.044 0.361 5.59 * * 0.338
Table II.
Regression results Notes: a 0 = women and 1 = men; * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01
leadership or opinion seeking, was regressed first across the levels of age and sex. The Fashion opinion
second step added the focal variables, CNFU and ATSCI, to the model to determine if their
relationships were independent of the demographic variables. Inspection of the
collinearity statistics showed that multi-collinearity was not a factor in these analyses as
tolerance for all the variables was 0.85 or better, and none of the VIFs were larger than 1.2.
In the first analysis, fashion OL was first regressed across age and sex. The results
showed that age was negatively related to opinion leadership and that women were more 35
likely to be clothing opinion leaders than men. Then, CNFU and ATSCI were added in the
second step. The standardized regression coefficients were all statistically significant.
Both CNFU and ATSCI were positively associated with clothing opinion leadership,
supporting H2 and H5. Even with the effects of age and sex accounted for, clothing
opinion leadership was associated with higher levels of need for uniqueness and higher
levels of attention to social comparison information. Apparently, clothing opinion leaders

feel the need to be unique and are more attentive to social cues than non-leaders[3].
In the second analysis, clothing opinion seeking was first regressed across the levels
of age and sex, and then CNFU and ATSCI were added to the equation. The results
showed that respondent age was negatively related to OS in fashion, but that
respondent sex was not. Younger consumers appear to be more likely to be clothing
opinion seekers than older consumers, but men and women are equally likely to seek
clothing advice. Attention to social comparison information was positively related to
clothing opinion seeking, suggesting that consumers who are attentive to social
information seek clothing advice from others. However, consumer need for uniqueness
was negatively related to clothing opinion seeking, suggesting that the more a
consumer seeks to be unique, and the less likely they seek clothing advice from others.
These results support H3 and H4.
For both variables, residual analyses showed that the regression assumptions were
largely met for:
.
the assumption of linearity for the overall equation and for the independent
variables;
.
the assumption of homoscedasticity; and
.
the assumption of normality of the error term of the variate (Hair et al., 1998).
To explore the influence of clothing involvement on these relationships, we used a

three-item scale to measure clothing involvement ða ¼ 0:93Þ: After mean centring the
variables, we included the interaction terms of CNFU and involvement and ATSCI
and involvement in the regression analyses. None of these effects were statistically
significant ð p , 0:05Þ; suggesting that the level of respondents’ involvement with
clothing did not influence the effects of CNFU and ATSCI on fashion OL and OS.
Discussion
What are fashion leaders and opinion seekers in fashion like? Our study sought to
contribute to their descriptions by examining the psychology of clothing opinion
leaders and seekers. In the case of clothing OL and OS, it appears that, in addition to
being younger than non-leaders and non-seekers, and in the case of opinion leadership,
more likely to be female, both opinion leaders and opinion seekers are more attentive to
social cues than are non-leaders and non-seekers. While fashion opinion leaders are
also more likely to need to express their need for uniqueness than non-leaders, fashion
JFMM opinion seekers are less likely to need to express their uniqueness than non-seekers.
10,1 Thus, we are gaining more insight into the psychology of both types of fashion buyers.
Bristor (1990) presents a summary of some of the factors (individual, product, or
situational) that motivate opinion leadership. Individual factors include such variables
as involvement with the product category, anxiety reduction, and identification with
group standards. Motives for opinion seeking usually include risk reduction and
36 timesaving. From the theoretical perspective, our study adds to the profile of fashion
leaders and seekers. At least two other psychological factors also play a role in these
behaviours. Broad descriptions of these two types of consumer behaviours predicted
the relationships, so that the results are consistent with existing theories of OL/OS and
contribute insight into the motivational forces of these social behaviours. In the domain
of clothing, our results suggest that leaders and seekers act complementarily: fashion
leaders innovate in order to feel unique and seekers are guided by leader orientations
and advice because they are very attentive to social cues. CNFU and ATSCI could
represent particularly relevant psychological traits to explain the dynamics of
diffusion and renewal of fashion clothes in groups.
For managers in the clothing domain, knowing that their opinion leaders are likely
to express uniqueness and to pay attention to social cues may provide important
contributions to strategy development. In appealing to OL, encouraging them to spread
positive WOM, strategies that reinforce their social acuity in scoping out what others
think and stressing how they can enhance their uniqueness by endorsing a brand,
might increase the effectiveness of the strategy. When it comes to OS, messages
encouraging them to seek out OL to get advice about brands, it might be more effective
it the messages stress once again how effective the consumer is in picking up social
cues. However, for OS, the promotional messages should not emphasize that they will
become more unique by seeking clothing advice, but in fact, may fit in better with their
social context by doing so.
Our findings are limited in generalizability by the homogeneous convenience
sample. To accurately assess the size of these relationships in the population at large,
random samples such as those used by commercial market research companies are
needed. A second limitation comes from the use of a single product category in which
we assessed these relationships. Future studies should focus on replicating and
extending our findings in other product fields. Finally, we used self-reports to measure
and a cross-sectional survey. To determine if these relationships are causal,
experimental studies are required.
One particularly important avenue for future research would be to assess whether
the CNFU/ATSCI ! OL/OS relationship depends on the type of product being studied.
Clothing is high in social influence, and the social context is important because it is a
publicly consumed good with high symbolic value to consumers. Would these same
relationships obtain for privately consumed goods or necessities as well (Bearden and
Etzel, 1982)? Questions also arise regarding the overlap between fashion
innovativeness and opinion leadership. Are there two kinds of innovative
consumers, those who also act as opinion leaders and those who do not?
Baumgarten (1975) raised this issue but it has received little research attention
since. The findings of the present study suggest that these differences do exist and that
they might be due to the influence of personality constructs such as ATSCI and CNFU.
Obviously, consumers engage in OL and OS for different reasons. Sometimes they Fashion opinion
are excited by the product and want to talk about it. Sometimes they particularly like
or dislike a product and want to share their opinions. They may simply be seeking
information and saving time. However, for some product categories at least, they might
be motivated by deeper psychological influences related to their social needs. Our
study suggests that these needs do play a role and are worthy of both theoretical and
managerial attention. 37
Notes
1. This result is coherent with the established relationship between enduring involvement and
opinion leadership (Ritchins and Root-Shaffer, 1988; Venkatraman, 1990).
2. Race was not included in the analyses because there were few non-white respondents, and we
had no theoretical reason to assume there would be racial differences in these relationships.
3. For opinion leadership, analysis of outliers showed that only one case had a standardized
residual larger than 3.0. This case was removed and the analysis repeated. Although the
results provided stronger support for the hypothesized modelðadj R 2 ¼ 0:275 F ¼ 19:83;
p , 0:001Þ and the standardized regression coefficients were higher for the focal variables
(CNFU b ¼ 0:329; ATSCI b ¼ 0:232Þ, there was no compelling reason to remove the case
from the main analysis shown in Table II. For opinion seeking, outlier analysis showed no
cases with standardized residuals larger than 3.0.
References
America’s Tastemakers (1959), America’s Tastemakers 1 and 2, The Public Opinion Index for
Industry, Opinion Research Corporation, Princeton, NJ.
Bansal, H.S. and Voyer, P.A. (2000), “Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase
decision context”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 166-77.
Baumgarten, S.A. (1975), “The innovative communicator in the diffusion process”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 12-18.
Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), “Reference group influence on product and brand purchase
decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, September, pp. 183-94.
Bearden, W.O. and Rose, R.L. (1990), “Attention to social comparison information: an individual
difference factor affecting consumer conformity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 461-71.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), “Measurement of consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, March, pp. 473-81.
Ben-Miled, H. and Le Louarn, P. (1994), “Analyse comparative de deux échelles de mesure du
leadership d’opinion: validité et interprétation”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 23-51.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bristor, J.M. (1990), “Enhanced explanations of word of mouth communications: the power of
relationships”, in Hirschman, E.C. (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 51-83.
Brown, J.J. and Reingen, P.H. (1987), “Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behaviour”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 12, pp. 350-62.
Burnkrant, R.E. and Cousineau, A. (1975), “Informational and normative social influence in buyer
behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 12, pp. 206-14.
JFMM Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981), “Designing research for application”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 197-207.
10,1
Chan, K.K. and Misra, S. (1990), “Characteristics of the opinion leader: a new dimension”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 53-60.
Childers, T.L. (1986), “Assessment of psychometrics properties of an opinion leadership scale”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 184-8.
38 Coulter, R.A., Feick, L.F. and Price, L.L. (2000), “Changing faces: cosmetics opinion leadership
among women in the new Hungary”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 11,
pp. 1287-308.
Cramer, K.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2002), “The Lennox and Wolfe revised self-monitoring scale:
latent structure and gender invariance”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 627-37.

Cristau, C. and Strazzieri, A. (1996), “Implication durable et leadership d’opinion: la valeur
prédictive de trois échelles d’implication durable”, Actes du 12e congrès de l’Association
Française du Marketing, Poitiers, pp. 141-60.
Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.D. (1972), “Predicting opinion leadership for men’s apparel
fashions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, August, pp. 324-8.
Davis, L.L. and Lennon, S.J. (1985), “Self-monitoring, fashion opinion leadership and attitudes
toward clothing”, in Solomon, M.R. (Ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA, pp. 177-82.
Dawson, S. and Ridgway, N. (1987), “The relationship between need for uniqueness and fashion
opinion leadership: a motivational approach”, Proceedings of the AMA Winter Educators’
Conference, San Antonio, TX, June, pp. 225-8.
Dichter, E. (1966), “How word-of-mouth advertising works”, Harvard Business Review,
November, pp. 131-44.
Dollinger, S.J. and DiLalla, D.L. (1996), “Cleaning up data and running preliminary analyses”,
in Leong, F.T.L. and Austin, J.T. (Eds), The Psychology Research Handbook, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 167-76.
Donaton, S. (2003), “Marketing’s new fascination: figuring out word-of-mouth”, Advertising Age,
Vol. 74 No. 46, p. 18.
Duhan, D.F., Johnson, S.D., Wilcox, J.B. and Harrel, G.D. (1997), “Influences on consumer use of
word-of-mouth recommendation sources”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 283-95.
Ekeh, P.P. (1974), Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Eliashberg, J. and Shugan, S.M. (1997), “Film critics: influencers or predictors?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61, April, pp. 68-78.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1995), Consumer Behavior, The Dryden Press,
Hinsdale, IL.
Evans, M. (1989), “Consumer behaviour towards fashion”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 7, pp. 7-16.
Feick, L., Price, L.L. and Higie, R.A. (1986), “People who use people: the other side of opinion
leadership”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 301-5.
Festinger, L. (1954), “A theory of social comparison processes”, Human Relations, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 117-40.
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. (1996), “Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two Fashion opinion
new measurement scales”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 137-47.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1986), “An exchange theory model of interpersonal
communication”, in Lutz, R.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Association
for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 534-8.
Gilly, M.C., Graham, J.L., Wolfinbarger, F.M. and Yale, L.J. (1998), “A dyadic study of 39
interpersonal information search”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 83-100.
Gladwell, M. (2000), The Tipping Point, Little, Brown and Co, Boston, MA.
Goldsmith, R.E. and De Witt, T.S. (2003), “The predictive validity of an opinion leadership scale”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 28-35.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Desbordes, R. (1991), “A validity study of a measure of opinion leadership”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 362-71.
Goldstein, L. (1999), “The alpha teenager”, Fortune, December 20, pp. 201-4.
Gur-Arie, O., Durand, R.M. and Bearden, W.O. (1979), “Attitudinal and normative dimensions of
opinion leaders and non-leaders”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 305-12.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955), Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of
Mass Communication, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Keller, E.B. and Berry, J.L. (2003), The Influentials: One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine
How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buy, Free Press, New York, NY.
King, C.W. and Summers, J.O. (1970), “Overlap of opinion leadership across consumer product
categories”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-50.
Lascu, D-N. and Zinkhan, G. (1999), “Consumer conformity: review and applications for
applications for marketing theory and practice”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Lennox, R.D. and Wolfe, R.N. (1984), “Revision of the self-monitoring scale”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1349-64.
Marion, G. (2003), “Apparence et identité: une approche sémiotique du discours des adolescentes
à propos de leur expérience de la mode”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 1-29.
Marshall, R. and Gitosudarmo, I. (1995), “Variation in the characteristics of opinion leaders across
cultural borders”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Maslach, C., Stapp, J. and Santee, R.T. (1985), “Individuation: conceptual analysis and
assessment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 729-38.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Cass, A. (2000), “An assessment of consumers’ product, purchase decision, advertising and
consumption involvement in fashion clothing”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 545-76.
Peterson, R.A. (1994), “A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 381-91.
Piirto, R. (1992), “The influentials”, American Demographics, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 30-8.
Punj, G. and Staelin, R. (1983), “A model of consumer information search behavior for new
automobiles”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 366-80.
JFMM Ritchins, M.L. and Root-Shaffer, T. (1988), “The role of enduring involvement and opinion
leadership in consumer word-of-mouth: an implicit model made explicit”, Advances in
10,1 Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Rogers, E.M. (1961), “Characteristics of innovators and other adopter categories”, Ohio
Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin, p. 882.
Rogers, E.M. and Cartano, D.G. (1962), “Methods of measuring opinion leadership”, Public
40 Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 26, Fall, pp. 435-41.
Rosen, E. (2000), The Anatomy of Buzz: How to Create Word of Mouth Marketing, Doubleday,
New York, NY.
Schmidt, J.B. and Spreng, R.A. (1996), “A proposed model of external consumer information
search”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24, March, pp. 246-56.
Simonson, I. and Nowlis, S.M. (2000), “The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in
consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons”, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
Snyder, M. (1974), “Self-monitoring of expressive behavior”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 526-37.
Snyder, M. (1987), Public Appearances, Private Realities: The Psychology of Self-Monitoring,
Freeman, New York, NY.
Snyder, M. and Fromkin, H.L. (1977), “Abnormality as a positive characteristic: the development
and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
Vol. 86, October, pp. 518-27.
Summers, J.O. (1970), “The identity of women’s clothing fashion opinion leaders”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 178-85.
Tian, T.K. and Bearden, W.O. (2002), “Distinguishing consumers’ need for uniqueness from
individuation and general need for uniqueness”, in Woodside, A.G. and Moore, E.M. (Eds),
Essays by Distinguished Marketing Scholars of the Society for Marketing Advances, Vol. 11,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 171-98.
Tian, T.K., Bearden, W.O. and Hunter, G.L. (2001), “Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scale
development and validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 50-66.
Turnbull, P.W. and Meenaghan, A. (1980), “Diffusion of innovation and opinion leadership”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-33.
Venkatraman, M.P. (1990), “Enduring involvement and characteristics of opinion leaders:
a moderating or mediating relationship”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 60-7.
Vernette, E. (2004), “Targeting women’s clothing fashion opinion leaders in media planning:
an application for magazines”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 90-107.
Weimann, G. (1994), The Influentials: People Who Influence People, State University of New York
Press, Albany, NY.
Corresponding author
Ronald E. Goldsmith can be contacted at: rgoldsm@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Changsup Shim, Seongjin Kang, Insin Kim, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2015. Luxury-cruise travellers’ brand
community perception and its consequences. Current Issues in Tourism 1-21. [CrossRef]
2. DongHee Kim, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, Howard Adler. 2015. What drives café customers to spread
eWOM?. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27:2, 261-282. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
3. Dev Jani, Dae-Young Kim, Yeong-Hyeon Hwang. 2014. Query Titles in Travel Forums: Nature and
Impacts on Responses. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19, 1127-1140. [CrossRef]
4. Ryan C. Anderson, Michele K. Surbey. 2014. I Want What She’s Having. Human Nature 25, 342-358.
[CrossRef]
5. Ju-Young M. Kang, Kim K.P. Johnson, Juanjuan Wu. 2014. Consumer style inventory and intent to social
shop online for apparel using social networking sites. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal 18:3, 301-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Long Ma, Chei Sian Lee, Dion Hoe-Lian Goh. 2014. Understanding news sharing in social media. Online
Information Review 38:5, 598-615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Jessica L. Kestler, V. Ann Paulins. 2014. Fashion Influences between Mothers and Daughters: Exploring
Relationships of Involvement, Leadership, and Information Seeking. Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal 42:10.1111/fcsr.2014.42.issue-4, 313-329. [CrossRef]
8. Anders Hauge Wien, Svein Ottar Olsen. 2014. Understanding the Relationship between Individualism
and Word of Mouth: A Self-Enhancement Explanation. Psychology & Marketing 31:10.1002/
mar.2014.31.issue-6, 416-425. [CrossRef]
9. Denise M. Janssen, Leonard J. Paas. 2014. Moderately thin advertising models are optimal, most of the
time: Moderating the quadratic effect of model body size on ad attitude by fashion leadership. Marketing
Letters 25, 167-177. [CrossRef]
10. Christina S. Simmers, R. Stephen Parker, Allen D. Schaefer. 2014. The Importance of Fashion: The
Chinese and U.S. Gen Y Perspective. Journal of Global Marketing 27, 94-105. [CrossRef]
11. Hae Jin Gam, Yoon Jin Ma, Jennifer Banning. 2014. Socially Responsible Apparel Labels: Effects on
Fashionable Shoppers. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 42:10.1111/fcsr.2014.42.issue-3,
292-305. [CrossRef]
12. Chae Mi Lim, Youn-Kyung Kim, Rodney Runyan. 2013. Segmenting luxe-bargain shoppers using a
fuzzy clustering method. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 41:11/12, 848-868.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Jie Zhang, Wei-Na Lee. 2013. Exploring the Impact of Cultural Value Orientations on Market Mavenism
and Opinion Leadership. Journal of Promotion Management 19, 534-555. [CrossRef]
14. Priscilla Njeri Gitimu, Jane Workman, Joyce Robin Robinson. 2013. Garment quality evaluation: influence
of fashion leadership, fashion involvement, and gender. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology
and Education 6, 173-180. [CrossRef]
15. Ting Chi. 2013. The effects of contingency factors on perceived values of casual sportswear. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 25:2, 249-262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Sanjukta Pookulangara, Arlesa Shephard. 2013. Slow fashion movement: Understanding consumer
perceptions—An exploratory study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20, 200-206. [CrossRef]
17. Iman Naderi. 2013. Beyond the fad: a critical review of consumer fashion involvement. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 37:10.1111/ijcs.2013.37.issue-1, 84-104. [CrossRef]
18. Ayalla Ruvio, Yossi Gavish, Aviv Shoham. 2013. Consumer's doppelganger: A role model perspective on
intentional consumer mimicry. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 12:10.1002/cb.v12.1, 60-69. [CrossRef]
19. Arménio Rego, Miguel Pina e Cunha. 2012. They Need to be Different, They Feel Happier in
Authentizotic Climates. Journal of Happiness Studies 13, 701-727. [CrossRef]
20. Nizar Souiden, Bouthaina M’Saad, Frank Pons. 2011. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Consumers’
Conspicuous Consumption of Branded Fashion Accessories. Journal of International Consumer Marketing
23, 329-343. [CrossRef]
21. Paul Rose, JongHan Kim. 2011. Self-Monitoring, Opinion Leadership and Opinion Seeking: a
Sociomotivational Approach. Current Psychology 30, 203-214. [CrossRef]
22. Roland Helm, Michael Möller, Jana Rosenbusch. 2011. Zur Persönlichkeitsstruktur von Multiplikatoren
im On- und Offline-Bereich: Steigt deren Zahl durch die Online-Kommunikation?. Zeitschrift für
Betriebswirtschaft 81, 147-177. [CrossRef]
23. Hae Jin Gam. 2011. Are fashion‐conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco‐friendly clothing?. Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 15:2, 178-193. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
24. Rajasree K. Rajamma, Lou E. Pelton, Maxwell K. Hsu, Dee K. Knight. 2010. The Impact of Consumers’
Need for Uniqueness and Nationality on Generation Y's Retail Patronage Behaviors: Investigating
American and Taiwanese Consumers. Journal of Global Marketing 23, 387-410. [CrossRef]
25. Chelsey Latter, Ian Phau, Chris Marchegiani. 2010. The Roles of Consumers Need for Uniqueness and
Status Consumption in Haute Couture Luxury Brands. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1, 206-214.
[CrossRef]
26. Jiyun Kang, Haesun Park‐Poaps. 2010. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion
leadership. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 14:2, 312-328.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Somnath Chakrabarti, Rajat K. Baisya. 2009. The influences of consumer innovativeness and consumer
evaluation attributes in the purchase of fashionable ethnic wear in India. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 33:10.1111/ijc.2009.33.issue-6, 706-714. [CrossRef]
28. Ronald E. Goldsmith, Ronald A. Clark. 2008. An analysis of factors affecting fashion opinion leadership
and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal
12:3, 308-322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Jane Lu Hsu, Kai‐Ming Chang. 2008. Purchase of clothing and its linkage to family communication and
lifestyles among young adults. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal
12:2, 147-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Ayalla Ruvio. 2008. Unique like everybody else? The dual role of consumers' need for uniqueness.
Psychology and Marketing 25:10.1002/mar.v25:5, 444-464. [CrossRef]
31. Aviv Shoham, Ayalla Ruvio. 2008. Opinion leaders and followers: A replication and extension. Psychology
and Marketing 25:10.1002/mar.v25:3, 280-297. [CrossRef]
32. Ayalla Ruvio, Aviv Shoham, Maja Makovec Brenčič. 2008. Consumers' need for uniqueness: short‐form
scale development and cross‐cultural validation. International Marketing Review 25:1, 33-53. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
View publication stats

Some Psychological Motivations For Fashion Opinion Leadership and Fashion Opinion Seeking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Some Psychological Motivations For Fashion Opinion Leadership and Fashion Opinion Seeking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion leadership and

Article in Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management · January 2006

Laurent Bertrandias Ronald E. Goldsmith

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marketing Information Products View project

Brand Alliances View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 25 - 40

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

ACADEMIC PAPER Fashion opinion

Some psychological motivations

Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

consumers to seek opinions as well.

sources. Opinion seeking is conceptualized as a subdivision of external information

Opinion leadership and seeking motivations

Consumer need for uniqueness

(Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975). Counter-conformists do not try to be independent from

Attention to social comparison information

Consumer need for uniqueness and opinion leadership

These arguments justify the following hypothesis:

Consumer need for uniqueness and opinion seeking in fashion

Analyses and results

Independent variables B SE B t Part adj R 2 DR 2

Dependent variable: clothing opinion leadership

levels of attention to social comparison information. Apparently, clothing opinion leaders

To explore the influence of clothing involvement on these relationships, we used a

No. 5, pp. 627-37.

consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons”, Journal of

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats

You might also like