Industry and Innovation

ISSN: 1366-2716 (Print) 1469-8390 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciai20

An integrative model of the influence of self-

esteem on adolescents’ consumer innovativeness:
the mediating role of social network position and
need for uniqueness

Elodie Gentina & Jan Kratzer

To cite this article: Elodie Gentina & Jan Kratzer (2020): An integrative model of the influence of
self-esteem on adolescents’ consumer innovativeness: the mediating role of social network position
and need for uniqueness, Industry and Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2020.1743649

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1743649

Published online: 20 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ciai20
INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1743649

ARTICLE

An integrative model of the influence of self-esteem on

adolescents’ consumer innovativeness: the mediating role of
social network position and need for uniqueness
Elodie Gentinaa and Jan Kratzer b

a
Marketing Department, IESEG School of Management, Lille, France; bEntrepreneurship and Innovation,
Management, Center for Entrepreneurship, Technical University, Berlin, Germany

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite extensive investigations, full comprehension of consumer Consumer innovativeness;
innovativeness remains elusive during adolescence. This study Generation Z (adolescents);
explores the different routes by which self-esteem may prompt social network; need for
uniqueness; self-esteem
consumer innovativeness. We find two distinctive routes through
individuation (need for uniqueness, NFU) and social network (social
betweenness), each of which mediates the relationship between
self-esteem and consumer innovativeness. A sample of 747 adoles-
cents reveals that consumer innovativeness requires a balance
between NFU and betweenness centrality, such that adolescents
are both linked to diverse groups and ready to deviate from group
norms to establish their difference. These findings help consolidate
prior conceptual considerations of consumer innovativeness and
empirical studies that focus on social networks of innovators. In
addition, age and gender have moderating effects. With these
results, industry actors can derive more efficient methods to iden-
tify adolescents who exhibit the personality trait of consumer inno-
vativeness and also better understand their motives to innovate.

1. Introduction
As extensive research has shown, the buying habits and innovative preferences of young
consumers, such as Gen Y or Millenials, differ from those of their parents. The latest
generation of consumers appears to represent yet another distinct segment, such that
Generation Z, who were born after 1995, represent 29.5% of the global population and
differ dramatically in their behaviours compared with not just their parents but also their
near contemporaries, the more widely studied Millennials. This emerging generation of
consumers thus represents tremendous opportunities and challenges for marketers. The
global population of 641 million adolescents accounts for 819 USD billion in purchasing
power (Delgado 2015), including 117.8 USD billion in North America alone and 86.4
USD billion in Europe. Furthermore, some early indications suggest that these young
consumers seek to make and co-create, because they want to control and exhibit their
own preferences (Saettler 2014). Generation Z thus applies its innate understanding of

CONTACT Elodie Gentina elogentina@hotmail.com IESEG School of Management, 3 Rue De La Digue, Lille
59000, France
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

new technologies and social media to launch new businesses and participate in the
creation of new products that appeal to peers and others.
More broadly, consumers’ adoption of new products or services depends on their
innovativeness, such that innovative people purchase new products soon after they
appear in the market and relatively earlier than most other consumers (Goldsmith and
Foxall 2003). Consumer innovativeness is a driver of innovative behaviour (Roehrich
2004) and is important to the diffusion and adoption of new products and brands (Im,
Bayus, and Mason 2003). During adolescence, consumer innovativeness is unique,
developing in different ways than it does among other age cohorts (Gentina, Shrum,
and Lowrey 2016), because it entails identity mechanisms. That is, adolescents differ
qualitatively from children and adults, in terms of their level of self-esteem (Chaplin and
John 2007), their reliance on peers and the role of individuation in shaping their
identities (Marion and Nairn 2011). More precisely, during adolescence, the develop-
ment of the self hinges on three areas of adolescents’ identity affirmation that mostly
affect aspects of their biological, emotional and social lives (Gentina and Chandon 2014).

– The area of bodily changes during puberty, which affects the degree of self-esteem;
– The need to be recognised as distinct entity and corresponding independence in
behaviours, which is reflected in need for uniqueness;
– The need to increasingly rely on new significant others – their peers – and occupy-
ing strategic positions within the peer group, which is reflected in betweenness
centrality.

For these reasons, we focus on self-esteem and two social identity mechanisms – the
need for uniqueness (NFU) and network position (betweenness centrality)- that may
underlie adolescent consumer innovativeness.
Adolescence is a time period during which self-esteem decreases (Chaplin and John
2007). Thus, self-esteem, defined as a global personality construct that measures the
extent to which people have a positive attitude about themselves (Rosenberg 1979), may
be a first antecedent of consumer innovativeness, such as better self-esteem is positively
related to consumer innovativeness (Maden and Koker 2013). Moreover, both need for
uniqueness and network position may be antecedents of consumer innovativeness.
Indeed, consumer innovativeness represents a straightforward way to satisfy NFU, and
people with high NFU likely exhibit independent decision making, as is required for
innovative purchasing (Adityan et al. 2017; Roehrich 2004). Moreover, prior research has
focused on the effect of social network structure, and more specifically location char-
acteristics (such as betweenness centrality) on adoption of innovation in the organisa-
tional context (e.g., Muller and Peres 2019) or the characteristics of ‘Lead User’ or
‘Opinion Leaders’ (Kratzer and Lettl 2009; Kratzer et al. 2016). However, what remains
unclear is the process through which both need for uniqueness and network position lead
to adolescent consumer innovativeness. Thus, we provide a broader perspective in
explaining consumer innovativeness by considering self-esteem, NFU and network
position as antecedents.
Prior studies consider adolescents a homogenous entity, ignoring potential group
differences and notably the distinction between females and males or between younger
and older adolescents (Gentina and Delécluse 2018). For instance, some studies of
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 3

adolescents include only males or, even more often, females exclusively (Haytko and Baker
2004; Yalkin and Elliott 2006), and justify this choice with differences in consumption
without, however, attempting to contrast them. Moreover, because the transition from
early to late adolescence (e.g., middle school to high school) is particularly challenging
because it often requires establishing new relationships and losing old ones (Chaplin and
John 2010), we expect that some effects may differ between middle school and high school
adolescents. Our research objective is to show how self-esteem may be linked to consumer
innovativeness and to two social identity mechanisms (individuation and social network),
and to how both age and gender influence these relationships.

2. Theoretical development
2.1. Consumer innovativeness
Consumer innovativeness or ‘consumption of newness’ is defined as the ‘predisposition
to buy new and different products and brands rather than to remain with previous
choices and consumption patterns.’ (Im, Bayus, and Mason 2003, 62). Rogers (1995, 22)
defines consumer innovativeness as ‘the degree to which an individual is relatively
earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of his/her social system,’ implying
that a person’s psychological NFU and social identification determine her or his
innovativeness (Bartels and Reinders 2011). Building on this stream of literature,
Foxall, Goldsmith, and Brown (1998) conceptualise consumer innovativeness as
a tendency to buy new products in a particular product category soon after they appear
in the market and relatively earlier than most other consumers. As a personality trait,
consumer innovativeness informs predictions of consumers’ innovative buying beha-
viour and adoption of new products (Hong, Lin, and Hsieh 2017; Li, Zhang, and Wang
2015).
Yet a distinction also exists, between an innate state of innovativeness and a domain-
specific trait of innovativeness. Innate innovativeness implies a general tendency to
purchase new products; domain-specific innovativeness instead refers to a tendency
that is limited to a particular product category (Goldsmith and Hofacker 1991; Midgley
and Dowling 1978). Research shows that this specific form of innovativeness is a better
predictor of intentions to adopt new products than the overall, innate level of innovation
(Goldsmith 2001; Roehrich 2004), across various categories of products, industries, and
countries (e.g., Agarwal and Karahanna 2000; Agarwal and Prasad 1998; Goldsmith et al.
2005; Roehrich 2004).
To ensure that we investigate domain-specific innovation, this study focuses on
fashion clothing – a domain that is particularly relevant to teens and highly significant
with regard to the diffusion of innovation. Fashion cycles frequently reflect the introduc-
tion of new clothing styles (Goldsmith, D’Hauteville, and Flynn 1998), and intentions to
adopt new fashions reflect the fashion innovativeness of consumers (Goldsmith and
Hofacker 1991; Rahman et al. 2014). Adolescence is crucial to identity development
processes, and fashion clothing helps teens express their singularity, as well their affilia-
tion to a group (Badaoui, Lebrun, and Bouchet 2012). We therefore examine the interplay
of NFU and social belonging, through betweenness centrality, in the context of adoles-
cents’ consumer innovativeness, specific to clothing fashion.
4 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

2.2. Self-esteem and consumer innovativeness

Of all the transitions in life, adolescence is particularly crucial to identity development
(Erikson 1968). Adolescence is the time during which their bodies undergo the trans-
formation from child to adult virtually stature and proportion (Blyth and Traeger 1988),
making adolescents very critical and self-conscious. These changes in the body affect the
development of the self-esteem (Rosenberg 1979). Self-esteem represents the evaluative
component of the self-concept (Gallois and Callan 1986) and often declines at the
beginning of adolescence (around age 12 or 13) (Rosenberg 1979) to rebound by middle
to late adolescence (O’Malley and Bachman 1983).
Self-esteem is an important personality trait and past research has studied self-esteem
as a key variable to determine consumption behaviour, because consumers often seek to
enhance their self-esteem through acquisition of goods (Truong and McColl 2011). In the
field of innovation, past research has shown that consumers with high levels of self-
esteem are highly innovate (Bruner 1986), because they are more ready to take risks and
accept novelty. High self-esteem is a part of the configuration described as the innovative
personality (Muzinich, Pecotich, and Putrevu 2003). Concerning the concept of innova-
tiveness, some studies have shown that personality traits, such as the Big-Five
Personality, are significant explanatory factor of innovativeness (Ali 2019). For instance,
the qualities of enthusiasm and positive emotions (Rossberger 2014) affect positively
innovativeness. Other research has shown that self-esteem (Maden and Koker 2013)
increase innovativeness. Although there has been a clear relationship between trait
personality, such as high self-esteem, and innovativeness (Maden and Koker 2013), the
best of our knowledge no study has investigated the possible influences of intervening
variables, related to social identity theory – individuation and social belonging – on the
relationship between self-esteem and consumer innovativeness.

2.3. Social belonging and individuation

According to social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986), the construction of social
identity relies on a desire to reconcile two fundamental, conflicting, human social
belonging and individuation.
Social belonging reflects the degree integration with others in their social networks
(Baumeister and Leary 1995). For adolescents, their circle of friends constitute a peer social
network (Tarrant, MacKenzie, and Hewitt 2006) that helps develop their social identities.
Adolescents participate actively in building their friendship social network as a way of
trying out various aspects of their social selves (Youniss and Smollar 1985). Maintaining
their friendships requires adolescents to have specific social positions within their networks
(Steinberg and Morris, 2001). As they explore their social networks, adolescents identify
specific locations in the network that favour them: some are connected to a variety of other
teens who belong to different subgroups while others remain on the periphery of the
network (Kratzer and Lettl 2009). These strategic positions can be measured using
betweenness centrality, which represents the shortest paths through the focal actor within
the social network (Freeman 1979). Rather than a simple count of the number of ties,
betweenness centrality indicates how effectively an actor facilitates the flow of information,
because she or he is positioned on many information paths (Borgatti 1995).
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 5

The self also commonly includes a more second, personal identity that stands apart
from, if in relation to, the social identity. This personal identity takes the form of
independent thinking and action, and such autonomy develops significantly during
adolescence (Douvan and Adelson 1966). In the individuation process, adolescents
evolve into adults in part by becoming independent thinkers and in part by meshing
with their cohort and its groups (Tajfel and Turner 1986). Because individuation involves
seeking and recognising unique features, this study uses consumer need for uniqueness
(NFU) (Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001) to operationalise individuation
Therefore, we use NFU and network position as two pertinent mediators of the
relationship between self-esteem and consumer innovativeness. Specifically, drawing
particularly from Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social identity theory, we examine adoles-
cents’ position within their peer networks, using a betweenness centrality indicator for
bridging different communities/groups, and their NFU as social mechanisms that might
explain consumer innovativeness.

3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Self-esteem and need for uniqueness
Prior research indicates that people seek to differentiate themselves from other members
of their group because they strive for uniqueness and difference (Snyder and Fromkin
1977). Therefore, NFU theory posits that ‘the need to see oneself as unique is a potent and
continuous force in our society’ (Snyder and Fromkin 1980, 3). For example, when
people have a high NFU, they seek to express their difference publicly through observable
behaviours, such as by wearing fashions that signal or establish their difference
(Piacentini 2010; Workman and Kidd 2000).
Behind need for uniqueness actually stems from an unsatisfactory evaluation of self
(Fromkin 1972). Prior research has shown a negative relationship between self-esteem
and need for uniqueness (Clark and Goldsmith 2005). Indeed, Clark and Goldsmith
(2005, 296) posit that ‘consumer with high self-esteem do not feel the need to differ-
entiate themselves from other consumers with their product; whereas individuals low in
self-esteem need to break social norms to have positive evaluations about themselves’.
We thus expect to replicate, on an adolescent population, the relationship that Clark and
Goldsmith (2005) identified on adults:

H1. Adolescent self-esteem is negatively related to NFU

3.2. Self-esteem and betweenness centrality

Self-esteem and social belonging are intertwined because ‘self-esteem influences the filter
through with people perceive acceptance’ (Cameron and Granger 2016, 2). Prior research
has shown that people with higher self-esteem report a greater sense of social belonging
(Leary et al. 1995) and greater acceptance (Brockner and Lloyd 1986) compared to those
with lower self-esteem (Leary et al. 1995). When people have high self-esteem, they use
signals of self-esteem as a shortcut to forming impressions about them, which in turn
influence the degree of acceptance of these individuals. On the contrary, when people are
6 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

considered as having low self-esteem, they are viewed as less acceptable and less desirable.
People with low self-esteem engage in certain behaviours that impede satisfying social
relationships, and consequently increase their experience of loneliness (Peplau and
Perlman 1982).
As previously explained, we examine social belonging, through network position.
Betweenness centrality represents a network position as bridging actor between different
groups of contact. This means self-esteem can build on different groups of peers, different
topics and different modes of belonging. Our argument here is belonging to a diverse set
of groups of peers increases social belonging compared being embedded in only one
group of peers as represented with degree centrality (Kratzer and Lettl 2009). With
a variety of social assets supporting self-esteem is certainly stronger compared being
embedded in only one group of peers. Therefore,

H2. Adolescent self-esteem is positively related to betweenness centrality

3.3. Need for uniqueness and consumer innovativeness

Consumer innovativeness is driven by traits of personality, such as independence and
NFU (Roehrich 2004). Consumers with high consumer innovativeness are more open
towards the purchase of new and innovative products and brands, and attach importance
to values, such as creativity and differentiation (Koschate-Fischer et al. 2018). Consumer
innovativeness represents a straightforward way to satisfy NFU, and people who sense
their NFU likely exhibit independent decision making, as is required for innovative
purchasing (Adityan et al. 2017; Roehrich 2004). Therefore, we expect:

H3. Adolescent consumers’ need for uniqueness relates positively to their consumer
innovativeness.

3.4. Betweenness centrality and consumer innovativeness

A well-positioned actor can spread new ideas, practices, and objects within and between
communities through interpersonal communications, as suggested by diffusion of inno-
vation theory (Gatignon and Robertson 1985). Friendship networks act as channels for
word of mouth and provide role models who inspire others to imitate their behaviour
(Ryu and Han 2009), such that they diffuse innovative information throughout the
network (Burt 1992; Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass 2001). Being positioned between others
in these social networks offers the actor a greater opportunity to receive non-redundant,
diverse information and innovations from unconnected parts of the network (Burt 1992).
Actors who bridge diverse groups are provided with information (and control) benefits,
which can be utilised in a social context, maybe not only within one single group or
community but within a number of groups and communities. In turn, these actors might
be able gather and integrate the elements from their diverse knowledge bases (e.g., Dahl
and Moreau 2002; Ward 1994). The resulting novel, cognitive processes lead them to
emerge as trendsetters who can recognise links between seemingly unrelated concepts
and find innovative solutions, different from the ways things usually are done (Kratzer
et al. 2016;). Therefore, betweenness centrality is related to both opinion leadership (Lee,
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 7

Cotte, and Noseworthy 2010) and roles as lead users (Iacobucci and Hoeffler 2016;
Kratzer and Lettl 2009; Kratzer et al. 2016). People with high betweenness centrality
have greater access to subgroups across the network, and they also have the unique
advantage of being able to provide others with valuable information (Kratzer et al. 2016;
Lee, Cotte, and Noseworthy 2010).
However, although research has focused on the effect of social network structure, and
more specifically location characteristics (such as betweenness centrality) on adoption of
innovation in the organisational context (e.g., Grewal, Lilien, and Mallapragada 2006) or
the characteristics of ‘Lead User’ or ‘Opinion Leaders’ (Kratzer and Lettl 2009; Kratzer
et al. 2016), little is known about the relationship between betweenness centrality and
consumer innovativeness. Adolescence is characterised by an inflated concern for group
membership and connections to different cliques, so betweenness centrality should be
particularly pertinent to adolescent consumers’ innovativeness. Specifically, we suppose
that adolescents in brokering positions have a privileged ability to seek and buy new and
different products, because adolescents with high betweenness centrality receive diverse
information and knowledge from unconnected parts of their network that stimulate their
creativity. Thus,

H4. Adolescents’ betweenness centrality relates positively to their consumer innovativeness.

We will also analyse the interaction between betweenness centrality and NFU on
consumer innovativeness.

3.5. Mediation hypotheses

The preceding hypotheses suggest that the self-esteem- consumer innovativeness rela-
tionship is mediated by NFU and betweenness centrality. In particular, we propose that
self-esteem decreases NFU, which in turn, leads to decrease consumer innovativeness.
Moreover, self-esteem increases betweenness centrality, which in turn, leads to increase
consumer innovativeness. Hence, we propose that self-esteem has a positive effect on
consumer innovativeness, via two different social identity mechanisms, individuation
(NFU) and network position (betwenness centrality). Hence.

H5a. The relationship between self-esteem and consumer innovativeness is mediated by

NFU.

H5b. The relationship between self-esteem and consumer innovativeness is mediated by

betweenness centrality.

3.6. The role of age

Rogers (1995, 288) notes ‘inconsistent evidence about the relationship of age and
innovativeness,’ such that some studies uncover no relationship, but others indicate
that innovators are older in general (Hennala, Melkas, and Pekkarinen 2013). Some
researchers also postulate that a willingness to innovate decreases during adolescence,
because social pressure from peer groups encourages young consumers to follow
8 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

standard norms (Hartman, Gehrt, and Watchravesringkan 2004). Thus, innovators tend
to be younger (Lambert-Pandraud and Laurent 2010; Steenkamp, Hofstede, and Wedel
1999). Yet digital natives – that is, today’s adolescents – are prone to innovate and diffuse
innovations in their social network (Gentina, Butori, and Heath 2014). To explore this
potential moderating effect of age, we distinguish early from late adolescents and offer
distinct predictions related to their betweenness centrality.
Specifically, early adolescents, relative to older ones, exhibit a stronger need for social
belonging and social support from their peers (Berndt 1979), such that as they enter
middle school, they begin to consider multiple memberships in diverse groups, open
their minds to new ideas, and realise that they do not want to limit their self-definitions
(Giordano 2003). With the foundation of these diverse connections, late adolescents then
gain access to more non-redundant information; as we theorised previously, this access
should inspire innovation (Ko and Buskens 2011). Therefore, the positive relationship
between betweenness centrality and consumer innovativeness should be stronger for
early adolescents than for late adolescents.

H6a: Age negatively moderates the relationship between betweenness centrality and
consumer innovativeness.

Along with their diverse connections and non-redundant information, late adolescents
have developed a stronger sense of their self-identity, so they may feel confident acting
more independently than they would have as younger adolescents (Berndt 1979).
Innovation offers an excellent way for consumers to assert their self-identity and express
their uniqueness (Roehrich 2004). Therefore, the positive relationship between NFU and
consumer innovativeness should be stronger for late adolescents than for early adolescents.

H6b: Age positively moderates the relationship between between adolescent consumers’
need for uniqueness and consumer innovativeness.

3.7. The role of gender

Research on consumer innovativeness often addresses only single-gender groups,
whether women (e.g., Muzinich, Pecotich, and Putrevu 2003) or men (e.g., Darden and
Reynolds 1974). Studies that actually consider the effect of gender on consumer innova-
tiveness provide mixed results: Some indicate that gender differences explain consumer
innovativeness (Beaudoin, Lachance, and Robitaille 2003; Goldsmith, Stith, and White
1987), but others do not find any gender differences (Parker, Hermand and Schaefer,
2004).
For this study, we theorise that gender influences the nature of people’s networks.
Networks dominated by men tend to be large, influential, whereas networks dominated
by women are likely to be smaller and feature strong relationships (Hill, Leitch, and
Harrison 2006). Moreover, male adolescents, relative to female ones, exhibit a stronger
need for social belonging (Berndt 2002), and as they enter middle school, they begin to
consider multiple memberships in diverse groups (Brown, Mory., and Kinney 1994) or
seek to bridge different groups (Liu, Sun, and Li 2018), in a form of betweenness
centrality. Moreover, compared with women, men engage in groups over which they
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 9

can exert control, which might explain why betweenness centrality tends to be higher
among men than among women (Liu, Sun, and Li 2018). People with high betweenness
centrality have the potential to influence others near them in a network (Friedkin 1991),
through both direct and indirect pathways, because they exercise control over informa-
tion flows (Freeman 1979). Consistent with recent research (Liu, Sun, and Li 2018), we
predict that betweenness centrality is a key factor for explaining male adolescents’
consumer innovativeness.

H7a: The positive relationship between betweenness centrality and consumer innova-
tiveness is stronger for male adolescents than for female adolescents.

Cox and Dittmar (1995) also specify that clothes fulfill different social psychological
functions for women and men. Men tend to value clothes in a functional and individuating
fashion; women often have a more symbolic and other-oriented perspective. For men, clothes
are a means to express their individuality. Because men take a more self-oriented approach to
clothes than women, stressing their use as an expression of a unique personality, exhibiting
uniqueness should be more valued by adolescent boys than by adolescent girls.

H7b: The positive relationship between consumer need for uniqueness and consumer
innovativeness is stronger for male adolescents than for female adolescents.

4. Method
4.1. Data collection
The questionnaire was distributed to 1,013 adolescents (516 girls, 497 boys) across 37
school classes in three public and three private schools of an urban region in northern
France. The classroom provides an important unit of analysis for examining adolescents’
social positions (Gentina and Bonsu 2013). The urban settings helped ensure adequate
representation of various background characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, family type).
Surveys were administered to students during classes. The sample of 1,013 adolescents
was then randomly divided into two subsamples. In the first phase (n1 = 266), we assessed
the reliabilities and convergent and discriminant validities of measurement scales. In
the second phase (n2 = 747), we tested the structural equation model and the hierarchical
linear regression model. The first sample comprises 266 adolescents; the second sample
consists of 747 adolescents, from 28 different classrooms across both public and private
schools. By age, the participants included 254 who were 13–14 years of age, 305 who were
15–16 years, and 188 who were 17–18 years of age; the average age was 15.2 years old. The
average class size was 28 students (14 boys, 14 girls).
The respondents indicated up to five of their closest friends in their classes. The
network data were arranged in an N × N binary matrix (Wasserman and Faust 1994).
Using Ucinet software (Borgatti, Everett., and Freeman 2002), we derived a 28 × 28
network matrix, according to the network data, to calculate a betweenness centrality
score for each adolescent. We also created symmetric data for the matrix so that
adolescents in each class appeared in rows and columns. A score of 0 in a cell indicates
the absence, and 1 indicates the presence, of a friendship between two adolescents.
10 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

4.2. Construct measures

Because of its good psychometric properties, and noting that its internal consistency and
validity already have been demonstrated among samples of adolescents across cultures
(Gentina, Shrum, and Lowrey 2016), we rely on the consumer innovativeness scale
developed by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991).
To measure self-esteem, we use the single-item measure from Robins, Hendin, and
Trzesniewski (2001) (SISE), which is an alternative to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSE). Though shortened, the scale has strong convergent validity with the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale and had similar predictive validity as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
To measure NFU, the questionnaire included Tian, Bearden, and Hunter’s (2001)
three-dimensional scale, which relied on five-point Likert scales, as we detail in Table 1.
For all the scales, we translated the English items into the students’ native language, using
a multistage translation–back-translation procedure (Mayer 1980).
Some adolescents are central within groups whereas others are on the periphery and
serve to connect different groups. Betweenness centrality notes indirect ties in a network
and refers to the frequency with which a node falls between pairs of other nodes in the
network (Freeman 1979; Wasserman and Faust 1994). Betweenness centrality reflects
how many times an actor would need another actor to reach (or be reached by) someone
else in the network, so it indicates how well an actor can facilitate information flows,
according to a prime position on many information paths (Kratzer and Lettl 2009). If an
actor with high betweenness centrality exits the network, the speed and certainty of
transmission from one arbitrary point to another are at risk of significant damage
(Borgatti 1995). The measure is as follows:
bk ¼   gijk
ij
gij

where gij is the number of shortest paths from actor i to node j, and gijk is the number of
shortest paths from i to j that pass through k. We calculated betweenness centrality
measures using Ucinet 6.0 software (Borgatti, Everett., and Freeman 2002).

Table 1. Measurement scales (n2 = 747).

Measure Items Mean SD
Self-esteem I have high self-esteem 2.90 .98
NFU, creative I have sometimes purchased unusual clothes as a way to create a more distinctive 2.78 1.04
choice personal image.
I often look for one-of-a-kind clothes or brands so that I create a style that is all my 3.24 1.04
own.
I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness by buying special clothes. 2.99 1.05
NFU, avoidance of The more commonplace clothes or brands are among the general population, the 3.16 1.24
similarity less interested I am in buying it.
As a rule, I dislike clothes or brands that are customarily purchased by everyone. 2.71 1.17
When clothes or brands I like become extremely popular, I lose interest in them. 2.45 1.11
I avoid clothes or brands that have already been accepted and purchased by the 2.95 1.17
average consumer.
Innovativeness In general, I am the first in my circle of friends to buy new a clothing item when it 2.41 1.12
arrives.
If I heard that a new fashion item was available in the store, I would be interested 3.55 1.46
enough to buy it.
I will buy a new fashion item even if I have not seen it before. 2.95 .96
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 11

4.3. Data analysis

To test Hypotheses 1–6, we used two methods: structural equation modelling (SEM) in
AMOS and hierarchical linear modelling (HLM). We conducted an HLM analysis to
check for possible nested structures embedded in the school classes and to statistically
reconfirm the results we obtained for Hypotheses 1–4 using AMOS 24. Structural
equation modelling served to test both the measurement and structural models.
In order to test the mediation effects (H5a and H5b), we used Preacher, Rucker, and
Hayes (2007) macro procedure, which is based on the calculation of the bias-corrected
(BC) bootstrap confidence interval available in Amos. If the 1,000 bootstrapped con-
fidence interval does not include 0, the indirect effect is significant and mediation is
established.
To assess the moderating effects of the continuous age variable (H6a and H6b), we also
applied double-mean-centring and estimated latent interactions with SEM. According to
Lin et al. (2010), a double-mean-centring strategy is superior to single-mean-centring
and orthogonalising approaches. Therefore, we first mean centred all indicators of both
independent variable (betweenness centrality and NFU), then product terms for the
latent variable indicators. All product terms then were mean-centred and served as
indicators of the latent interaction variable.
To check the moderating effects of gender (H7a and H7b), we relied on multi-group
analyses in SEM, with a stepwise procedure to test the invariance of the structural paths
across two different groups (Kline 2005). After imposing equality constraints on struc-
tural paths (χ2 H), we ran the baseline model without any parameter constraint, such that
the chi-square (χ2 N) exhibited additional degrees of freedom. As a statistical test of the
moderator effect, we took the difference in the two chi-square values (χ2 N – χ2 H),
which produces another chi-square value whose degrees of freedom are equal to the
difference in degrees of freedom between χ2 H and χ2 N.

5. Results
5.1. Structural equation modelling
5.1.1. Measure validity and reliability (n1 = 266)
We conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on the first sample with
SPSS and AMOS software (Kline 2005) (n1 = 266). We eliminated items from the scales
on the basis of their measurement properties (i.e., items that loaded on more than one
factor and items with factor loadings below 5.0). Moreover, we chose to exclude the third
dimension of NFU, unpopular choice counterconformity due to its lack of convergent
and discriminant validities. The resulting five-factor structure (self-esteem, creative
choice counterconformity, avoidance of similarity,1 betweenness and innovativeness)
offered satisfactory fit indices and coefficient alpha values (.74 to.80).

1
This third dimension mainly characterises consumers who choose products and brands that deviate from group norms
and risk social disapproval. Adolescents place great value on peers’ social approval (Piacentini 2010), and our pre-tests
(CFA) revealed extremely low standard deviation on this dimension, which prompted us to drop it for this study.
Moreover, the unpopular choice counterconformity was removed due to its lack of convergent and discriminant
validities.
12 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

In a second step (n2 = 747), we used confirmatory factor analyses to analyse the five-
scale structure. The five-factor scale provides a good fit to the data (χ2 = 78.11, df = 32,
p < .001, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .07, goodness-of-fit index
[GFI] = .94, comparative fit index [CFI] = .94, adjusted χ2 = 2.44). The composite
reliability coefficients (Jöreskog rhô > .74) and convergent and discriminant validities
were confirmed.

5.1.2. General model (H1, H2, H3, H4)

Given the acceptable fit of the measurement model, we proceeded to hypothesis-testing.
However, we first tested the simple relation between self-esteem and consumer innova-
tiveness. Although we provided no formal hypothesis regarding this relation, we use this as
a first step before testing the mediation models. We tested this relation by regressing self-
esteem on consumer innovativeness. Self-esteem was positively related to consumer inno-
vativeness (β = 0.25; t = 4.24, p < 0.05, R2 = .09). We discuss these implications presently.
To test our hypotheses, we first tested the full conceptual model with AMOS using
maximum likelihood estimation. We used structural equation modelling (SEM) in
AMOS to test our model.
The conceptual models showed reasonably good fit among the 747 adolescents
(χ2 = 254.91, df = 52, p < .0001; RMSEA = .05; GFI = .94; CFI = .90; Tucker-Lewis
index = .90; standardised root mean residual = .05; adjusted χ2 = 4.90). As we predicted
in H1, SE was negatively related to NFU (γ = −.09; t = −2.22; p < .05) and positively
related to betweenness centrality (γ = .09; t = 2.13; p < .05), in support of H1 and H2.
Moreover, NFU was positively associated with consumer innovativeness (γ = .11;
t = 2.01; p < .05), in support of H3. Moreover, betweenness centrality related signifi-
cantly and positively to consumer innovativeness, in support of H4 (γ = .13;
t = 2.31; p < .05).
In order to test the interaction effect (betwenness centrality * NFU), we mean-
centred all the variables (betweenness centrality, NFU and innovativeness), which
helped minimise multicollinearity (Aiken and West 1991; Little et al. 2007). This
reduction in collinearity reduces or eliminates the associated instability of regression
estimates and standard errors when collinearity is not removed (i.e., the ‘bouncing beta
weight’ problem). Multiple regression has shown a significant interaction effect
(betwenness centrality*NFU) on NFU (standardised coefficient Beta = 0.075; t = 2.06;
p < .05). According to Little et al. (2007), using multiple regression to test interaction
effect can be problematic because ‘regression assumes that variables are measured
perfectly and reliably (i.e., without error), and violating this assumption may lead to
bias in the parameter estimates. (. . .) This is particularly troublesome for an interactive
or nonlinear term because the unreliabilities of the constituent variables are compounded
in the interactive or higher order term’ (Little et al. 2007, p.219). Using SEM with AMOS
allows to bypass this problem. SEM has shown that the interaction between between-
ness centrality and NFU is positively related to consumer innovativeness (γ = .09;
t = 2.99; p < .05).

5.1.3. Mediation effect (H5a, H5b)

We next tested the mediation hypotheses (H5a, b) using Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes’s
(2007) PROCESS tool (Model 7). The effect estimations rely on bootstrapping with 2000
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 13

samples and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. The results show a negative and
statistically significant indirect effect of self-esteem on consumer innovativeness via NFU
(γ = −.09; [.02; .12]; p < .05) with betweenness centrality as a covariate, in support of H5a.
Moreover, we find a positive and statistically significant indirect effect of self-esteem on
consumer innovativeness via betweenness (γ = .07; [.03; .09]; p < .05) with NFU as
a covariate, in support of H5b.

5.1.4. Age differences (H6a, H6b)

To test the moderating effect of age, we mean-centred the interactions between between-
ness centrality and age, as well as NFU and age, which helped minimise multicollinearity
(Aiken and West 1991). The interaction between betweenness centrality and age relates
negatively to consumer innovativeness (γ = −.15; t = −3.05; p < .05), in support of H6a.
The interaction between NFU and age instead relates positively to consumer innovative-
ness (γ = 30; t = 9.40; p < .001), in support of H6b. These findings support an age identity
perspective, according to which early adolescents value social belonging and relationships,
but late adolescents are more concerned with expressing their uniqueness (Berndt 1979).

5.1.5. Gender differences (H7a, H7b)

For the multi-group analyses, we use two gender groups: females (n = 383) and males
(n = 364). Consistent with H7a, gender moderates the relationship of betweenness
centrality with innovativeness (χ2Δ(1) = 4.23, p < .05). Betweenness centrality relates
positively to innovativeness for male adolescents (γ = .20; t = −2.74; p < .05) but not for
female adolescents (γ = .07; t = .90; p = .31). Consistent with H7b, gender moderates the
relationship between NFU and innovativeness (χ2Δ(1) = 7.80, p < .05), such that NFU
relates positively to innovativeness for male (γ = .25; t = 2.91; p < .05) but not for female
adolescents (γ = −.07; t = −1.00; p = .36).

6. HLM
To test for nested structures that might be hidden in the 28 school classes (n2 = 747),
HLM regression is the method of choice (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992).
As Table 2 shows, the results of the SEM are confirmed. In further support of H3, the
HLM analysis indicates that an adolescent consumer’s NFU is positively related to
consumer innovativeness. In addition, adolescent betweenness centrality is positively
related to consumer innovativeness, in line with H4. Table 2 illustrates that the results
extracted using SEM can be generalised over all school classes; the HLM analysis clearly
shows no nested structures. In other words, there are no differences in the findings across
the 28 different school classes.

7. Discussion
7.1. Theoretical contributions
This study contributes to provide a broader perspective of the role of self-esteem on
consumer innovativeness, building our conceptual model on social identity theory, in
order to explore different routes by which self-esteem may prompt consumer
14 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

Table 2. Multilevel regression: Innovativeness.

Variables Coefficients
Individual-Level Variables
Intercept .12***
Gender −.21**
Age −.21**
NFU .32**
Betweenness Centrality .10*
Self-Esteem .15**
Level 2 Variance
Intercept .02**
Gender .01
Age .01
NFU .01
Betweenness Centrality .01
Self-Esteem .01
Level 2 Variance σ2 1.45***
Deviance 3183.49
*** p <.001; **p <.05; *p <.010.
In the applied two-level model, the individual level contains gender, age, self-
esteem, NFU, and betweenness centrality; we test all these variables for nested
effects on the second level, represented by the 28 school classes. To check the
suitability of the hierarchical regression analyses, we tested for multicollinearity
(Besley 1991) and for the distribution of residuals. We did not find any violations.
For the HLM, we estimated model fit using a deviance statistic, or – 2 Ln
likelihood function value at convergence (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992). In formal
terms, our base model uses the function Piq to denote the innovativeness of
adolescent i, where β0 j is a baseline innovativeness in school class
j. Interindividual variation depends on individual-level variables (xij) such as
gender, age, self-esteem, NFU, and betweenness centrality, and the individual-
level error term ξij represents residual inter-individual variance. Thus,
Level 1: Piq = β0j + β1jxij + . . . + ξij.
The Level 2 variation depends on the school classes, where εj is a level error term
that embodies all between-school class variation. We assume that the Level 2
error has a zero expected value and a normal distribution, εj ~ N(0, σ2), where
the variance σ2 is to be estimated. The term zj denotes the school classes
variable, and γ denotes the expected value of β when zj equals 0. Thus,
Level 2: β0 j = γ00 + γ01zj + . . . + ε0 jβ1 j = γ10 + γ11Zj + . . . + ε1j.
If these two levels are integrated in a single hierarchical linear regression model,
the applied model can be described in formal terms:
Piq = (γ00 + γ01zj + ε0j) + (γ10xij + γ11zjxij + ε1jxij) + . . . + ξij.
We executed the HLM regressions to test for nested structures hidden in school
classes, after grand mean-centring the variables, because our main interest is
the cross-level effects between Levels 1 and 2.

innovativeness. One is the route via individuation (need for uniqueness), which enables
to deviate the norms and values expressed by the peer group to establish difference. We
show a significant negative mediation: NFU mediate the relationship between self-esteem
and consumer innovativeness, thus providing a possible explanatory social identity
mechanism for the relationship between NFU and consumer innovativeness demon-
strated by Adityan et al. (2017) and Roehrich (2004). The other is the route via network
position (social betweenness), this bridging brokering position enables to receive diverse
information from unconnected parts of their network that stimulate creativity. We find
two distinctive social identity mechanisms through which, through individuation and
social network, each of which mediates the relationship between self-esteem and
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 15

consumer innovativeness. This distinction between two routes reveals the complex,
underlying social identity mechanisms that adolescents employ when they develop
their consumer innovativeness. Prior studies in innovation and entrepreneurship have
not explored the combination of individuation and social network on consumer innova-
tiveness, so the findings of this study fill an important research gap. Second, this research
provides initial insights into age and gender differences to understand social identity
mechanisms underlying consumer innovativeness among adolescents. Extending prior
studies on age (Hennala, Melkas, and Pekkarinen 2013) and gender differences (e.g.,
Beaudoin, Lachance, and Robitaille 2003; Goldsmith, Stith, and White 1987), we theorise
and find unique patterns by which adolescents engage in different social identity
mechanisms to develop their consumer innovativeness.
Innovativeness is associated with betweenness centrality among early adolescents
but not among late adolescents; it is linked to NFU among late adolescents but not
among early adolescents. These findings are consistent with research in social psychol-
ogy (Berndt 1979) and consumer behaviour (Gentina, Shrum, and Lowrey 2016) that
indicates people start to establish their social identity in adolescence by gaining
distance from their parents while developing social relationships outside the family
and connections to significant others, such as friends. When adolescents enter high
school, they develop a greater sense of self-identity than younger teens (Berndt 1979),
and consumer innovativeness may help these adolescents assert their self-identity and
signal their distinctiveness. According to John (1999) who summarised 25 years of
research on the cognitive development, adolescents older than 10 years enter the stage
of self-reflection and increasingly develop a stronger self-identity. Thus, the findings go
along the line of prior research.
Gender identity theorists suggest that differential adolescent socialisation processes
contribute to differences in individuation and social integration (Richins and Dawson
1992). Contrary to females who socialise to hold themselves higher, socially, and
depend on others (Chodorow 1978), males socialise to become individualistic (Betz,
O’Connell, and Shepard 1989) and seek to exert control and influence on others by
engaging themselves in diverse groups (Liu, Sun, and Li 2018). Our findings confirm
that both betweenness centrality and NFU are associated with consumer innovativeness
among adolescent boys, but not among adolescent girls. By revealing these results, the
current study creates new knowledge for gender studies; prior work has not addressed
gender differences with regard to social mechanisms that underlie consumer innova-
tiveness in adolescence. However, there is literature about network configurations and
differences about females and males. Women seem to have more close networks with
stronger contacts, whereas men seem to create more loose networks being high in
betweenness centrality (i.e., Van der Hulst 2004). When this holds for adolescent it
would explain the findings considering social networks effects. However, this has to be
treated with caution since the empirical results are rather weak and do not all indicate
this. The research in ‘online social networks’ could not reproduce these offline findings.
Considering NFU it might also be a matter of individual perceptions. Boys might rate
NFU higher than girls and therefore we find only among boys significant effects. But
both social network positions and NFU and gender differences need to be investigated
in additional studies.
16 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

7.2. Managerial contributions

Generation Z consumers exhibit strongly innovative, entrepreneurial, and independent
spirits, and 40% of adolescents claim that they plan to invent something that will change
the world (Seemiller 2016). For them, fashion is less about fitting in and more about designing
and customising their clothes to reflect their own identity. Adolescents seek new and
innovative fashion brands that favour experience, stimulate their creativity, which contributes
to develop their consumer innovativeness. To increase demand for their products, companies
must incorporate innovativeness. Our study offers extended insights into adolescent con-
sumer innovativeness, clarifying how and why social identity mechanisms define adolescent
consumers’ innovativeness and thus their adoption of fashionable new clothing. To encou-
rage adolescent consumer innovativeness, fashion providers could offer them tactics to help
satisfy their need to serve as bridges in social networks. For example, retailers might design
promotions that encourage shared benefits (e.g., ‘Recommend this product to your friends! If
they buy the same item, we’ll give you 30% off the second item, 40% off the third item . . . ’),
which would strengthen adolescent consumers’ sense of belonging and ability to serve as
bridges in their social networks. They also should stress the personal benefits of establishing
a unique identity by emphasising the exclusivity of fashion items and encouraging consumers
to customise their own product designs, as in the example of NIKEiD.
The age and gender differences that mark teens’ consumer innovativeness also suggest
a refinement worthy of managerial consideration. Emphasising consumption as a means
to attain the personal benefit of being unique might work for older innovators, but
marketing communications targeting younger innovators instead should highlight how
consuming novel clothing can help them become bridges and accepted maybe admired
members of diverse communities in their social networks. For boys, both NFU and
betweenness centrality are key variables that explain their consumer innovativeness. For
marketing departments, it should be important in knowing that social networks of boys
and girls might differ and need to be addressed in different ways using viral marketing.
Also, the use of language in addressing boys and girls might be different to be effective
when girls and boys rate NFU differently. Currently not much effort is made in addres-
sing boys and girls differently only a small number of brands does engage in this, however
the study indicates that addressing gender differences might be vital.
With their constant exposure to technological developments, the modern generation
of ‘digital natives’ are more connected than any prior generation. A 2018 Pew Research
Centre report (pewinternet.org) showed that 95% of adolescents have a smartphone and
are connected to the Internet and social networks through their smartphones. Online
social networks function not only as socialising channels but also as means to participate
in co-creation processes (Potts et al. 2008). Adolescents want to collaborate, interact,
create, and share their ideas on social media platforms. Teens already are actively
engaged in evaluating and co-creating products, and these roles appear likely only to
expand and increase (Manojlovic et al. 2017). Companies promote such co-creation
among adolescents, such as when Nestlé Crunch cereals solicited teens to engage online
by providing creative video contents. Admittedly, these co-creation efforts also could
create some risks for young consumers, such as a potential for exploitation, fraud, lack of
supervision, or privacy issues (de Wit et al. (2016). However, the combined efforts of
innovative adolescent consumers and the fashion companies that seek to facilitate their
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 17

ability to express both their uniqueness and their sociability ultimately should prove
beneficial for both parties.
Also, some critical points should be made here. For example, the introductions of new
generations of fashion collections rapidly increases, the some counts for other product
categories. The economic reasons for this can just be expressed in making higher turn-
overs and profits. Adolescent with high NFU are stimulated in buying ever faster new
fashion and others. This increases the social pressure among adolescents and ever
stronger highlights the economic status group of belonging. Policy makers might inter-
vene in prescribing uniform clothing at schools and openly warning for becoming
addicted to consumption. Also consumer rights might be adopted to this development
by giving adolescents more rights in giving back products or cancelling buying contracts
for a longer period of time.

8. Limitations
We relied on cross-sectional data for our model tests, which means causality cannot be
inferred. Longitudinal analyses could use the foundation of our cross-sectional models
and examine their viability over time. Moreover, this study addresses classroom-based
friendship networks. Because the classroom is constrained by the limited number of
adolescents who can be friends, it provides stable relationships but low network elasticity
(Lubbers 2003).2 Studying friendship networks outside the classroom, such as across the
grade, entire school, or external networks, thus could provide additional insights. We
conducted our study in a European, independence-oriented culture; studies in more
interdependent cultures might offer some unique insights, especially considering
research that shows that cross-cultural dimensions often provide significant predictors
of consumer innovativeness (Steenkamp, Hofstede, and Wedel 1999). And finally, our
findings suggest strong differences between females and males considering their social
networks and NFU. These differences need much deeper research in order to find some
valid explanation that are missing up to know.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the study participants for their contributions. All authors contributed to the
analysis plan and the drafting of the paper, and all approved the final version for submission.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Ethical Approval
Three French public and private schools participated. Informed consent to take part in the survey
during regular class hours was provided by both parents and teenage participants (aged 14–17
years).

2
Network elasticity refers to the degree to which people have free choices regarding with whom to interact (Lubbers
2003).
18 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

Funding
This publication is based on research funded in part by Skema Business School, which provided
the financial resources for data entry into a database set up in SPSS.

ORCID
Jan Kratzer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5605-5938

References
Adityan, H., S. Harikrishnan, J. J. Anand, and B. Saju. 2017. “Innovativeness and Uniqueness as
Motivations for Online Shopping Tendency and the Mediating Role of Information
Acquisition.” International Journal of Business Innovation and Research 13 (1): 30–51.
doi:10.1504/IJBIR.2017.083264.
Agarwal, R., and E. Karahanna. 2000. “Time Flies When You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption
and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage.” MIS Quarterly 24 (4): 665–694. doi:10.2307/
3250951.
Agarwal, R., and J. Prasad. 1998. “A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal
Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology.” Information System Research 9
(2): 204–215. doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.204.
Aiken, L. S., and S. G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.
London: Newbury Park.
Ali, I. 2019. “Personality Traits, Individual Innovativeness and Satisfaction with Life.” Journal of
Innovation & Knowledge 4 (1): 38–46. doi:10.1016/j.jik.2017.11.002.
Badaoui, K., A. M. Lebrun, and P. Bouchet. 2012. “Clothing Style, Music, and Media Influences on
Adolescents’ Brand Consumption Behavior.” Psychology and Marketing 29 (8): 568–582.
doi:10.1002/mar.20544.
Bartels, J., and M. J. Reinders. 2011. “Consumer Innovativeness and Its Correlates: A Propositional
Inventory for Future Research.” Journal of Business Research 64 (6): 601–609. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2010.05.002.
Baumeister, R. F., and M. R. Leary. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal
Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117 (3): 497–529.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Beaudoin, P., M. Lachance, and J. Robitaille. 2003. “Fashion Innovativeness, Fashion Diffusion and
Brand Sensitivity among Adolescents.” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 7 (1):
23–30. doi:10.1108/13612020310464340.
Berndt, T. J. 1979. “Developmental Changes in Conformity to Peers and Parents.” Developmental
Psychology 15 (6): 608–616. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.15.6.608.
Berndt, T. J. 2002. “Friendship Quality and Social Development.” Current Directions in
Psychological Science 11 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00157.
Besley, D. A. 1991. Conditioning Diagnostics. New-York: Wiley.
Betz, M., L. O’Connell, and J. M. Shepard. 1989. “Gender Differences Proclivity for Unethical
Behavior.” Journal of Business Ethics 8 (5): 321–324. doi:10.1007/BF00381722.
Blyth, D. A., and C. Traeger. 1988. “Adolescent Self-esteem and Perceived Relationships with
Parents and Peers.” In Social Networks of Children, Adolescents, and College Students, edited by
S. Salzinger, J. Antrobus, and M. Hammer, 171–194. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Borgatti, S. P. 1995. “Centrality and AIDS.” Connections 18 (1): 112–115.
Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett., and L. C. Freeman. 2002. UCINET 6 for Windows. Harvard, MA:
Analytic Technologies.
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 19

Brockner, J., and K. Lloyd. 1986. “Self-esteem and Likability: Separating Fact from Fantasy.”
Journal of Research in Personality 20 (4): 496–508. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(86)90128-5.
Brown, B. B., M. S. Mory., and D. Kinney. 1994. “Casting Adolescent Crowds in a Relational
Perspective: Caricature, Channel and Context.” In Personal Relationships during Adolescence,
edited by R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, and T. P. Gulotta, 123–167. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bruner, J. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryk, A. S., and S. W. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data
Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cameron, J., and S. Granger. 2016. “Self-esteem and Belongingness.” In Encyclopedia of Personality
and Individual Differences, edited by V. Zeigler-Hill and T. Shackelford, 1–3. Springer.
Chaplin, L. N., and D. R. John. 2007. “Growing up in a Material World: Age Differences in
Materialism in Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Consumer Research 34 (4): 480–493.
doi:10.1086/518546.
Chaplin, L. N., and D. R. John. 2010. “Interpersonal Influences on Adolescent Materialism: A New
Look at the Role of Parents and Peers.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (2): 176–184.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.02.002.
Chodorow, N. J. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, R. A., and R. E. Goldsmith. 2005. “Market Mavens: Psychological Influences.” Psychology &
Marketing 22 (4): 289–312. doi:10.1002/()1520-6793.
Cox, J., and H. Dittmar. 1995. “The Functions of Clothes and Clothing (Dis)satisfaction: A Gender
Analysis among British Students.” Journal of Consumer Policy 18 (2–3): 237–265. doi:10.1007/
BF01016513.
Dahl, D. W., and P. Moreau. 2002. “The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking during New
Product Ideation.” Journal of Marketing Research 39 (1): 47–60. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.47.18930.
Darden, W. R., and F. D. Reynolds. 1974. “Backward Profiling of Male Innovators.” Journal of
Marketing Research 11 (1): 79–85. doi:10.1177/002224377401100108.
de Wit, J., S. Manojlovic, K. Gavrilo, and V. J. Khan. 2016. “Crowdsourcing for Children:
Exploring Threats and Opportunities.” In K. Hansson, T. Aitamurto, T. Ludwig, N. Gupta,
and M. Muller (Eds.), International reports on socio-informatics (IRSI), Proceedings of the CHI
2016 - Workshop: crowd dynamics: exploring conflicts and contradictions in crowdsourcing
(Vol. 13, Iss. 2, pp. 9–14). New York, NY.
Delgado, M. 2015. Urban Youth and Photovoice: Visual Ethnography in Action. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Douvan, E., and J. Adelson. 1966. The Adolescent Experience. New York: Wiley.
Erikson, E. H. 1968. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.
Foxall, G. R., R. E. Goldsmith, and S. Brown. 1998. Consumer Psychology for Marketing. London:
International Thomson Business Press.
Freeman, L. C. 1979. “Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification.” Social Networks 1
(3): 215–239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.
Friedkin, N. E. 1991. “Theoretical Foundations for Centrality Measures.” American Journal of
Sociology 96 (6): 1478–1504. doi:10.1086/229694.
Fromkin, H. L. 1972. “Feelings of Interpersonal Indistinctiveness: An Unpleasant Affective State.”
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 6: 178–182.
Gallois, C., and V. J. Callan. 1986. “Decoding Emotional Messages: Influence of Ethnicity, Sex,
Message Type, and Channel.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (4): 755–762.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.755.
Gatignon, H., and T. S. Robertson. 1985. “A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research.”
Journal of Consumer Research 11 (March): 849–867. doi:10.1086/209021.
Gentina, E., and J. L. Chandon. 2014. “The role of gender on the frequency of shopping with
friends during adolescence: Between need for individuation and need for assimilation.”
Recherche et Applications en Marketing 29 (4): 35–64. doi:10.1177/0767370114538905.
20 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

Gentina, E., L. J. Shrum, and T. Lowrey. 2016. “Teen Attitudes toward Luxury Fashion Brands
from A Social Identity Perspective: A Cross-cultural Study of French and U.S. Teenagers.”
Journal of Business Research 65 (10): 1443–1451.
Gentina, E., and M. E. Delécluse. 2018. La Generation Z: Des Z Consommateurs Aux
Z Collaborateurs [Generation Z: From Z Consumers to Z Co-workers]. Paris: Dunod (in French).
Gentina, E., R. Butori, and T. Heath. 2014. “Unique but Integrated: The Role of Individuation and
Assimilation Processes in Teen Opinion Leadership.” Journal of Business Research 67 (2): 83–91.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.013.
Gentina, E., and S. Bonsu. 2013. “Peer Social Network Influences on Teens’ Shopping Behavior.”
Journal of Retailing and Customer Services 20 (1): 87–93. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.10.009.
Giordano, P. C. 2003. “Relationships in Adolescence.” Annual Review of Sociology 29 (1): 257–281.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100047.
Goldsmith, R. E. 2001. “Using the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale to Identify Innovative
Internet Consumers.” Internet Research 11 (2): 149–158. doi:10.1108/10662240110695098.
Goldsmith, R. E., and G. R. Foxall. 2003. “The Measurement of Innovativeness.” In International
Handbook of Innovation, Personal Relationships during Adolescence, edited by L. V. Shavinina,
321–330. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Science.
Goldsmith, R. E., and C. F. Hofacker. 1991. “Measuring Consumer Innovativeness.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Sciences 19 (3): 209–222. doi:10.1007/BF02726497.
Goldsmith, R. E., D. Kim, L. R. Flynn, and W. M. Kim. 2005. “Price Sensitivity and Innovativeness
for Fashion among Korean Consumers.” Journal Society Psychology 145 (5): 501–508.
doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.5.501-508.
Goldsmith, R. E., F. D’Hauteville, and L. R. Flynn. 1998. “Theory and Measurement of Consumer
Innovativeness: A Transnational Evaluation.” European Journal of Marketing 32 (3/4): 340–353.
doi:10.1108/03090569810204634.
Goldsmith, R. E., M. T. Stith, and J. D. White. 1987. “Race and Sex Differences in Self-identified
Innovativeness and Opinion Leadership.” Journal of Retailing 63: 411–425.
Grewal, R., G. L. Lilien, and G. Mallapragada. 2006. “Location, Location, Location: How Network
Embeddedness Affects Project Success in Open-source Systems.” Management Science 52 (7):
1043–1056. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0550.
Hartman, J. B., K. C. Gehrt, and K. Watchravesringkan. 2004. “Re-examination of the Concept of
Innovativeness in the Context of the Adolescent Segment: Development of a Measurement
Scale. Journal of Targeting, Measurement &.” Analysis for Marketing 12 (4): 353–365.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740122.
Haytko, D. L., and J. Baker. 2004. “It Is All the Mall: Exploring Adolescent Girls’ Experiences.”
Journal of Retailing 80 (1): 67–83. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.01.005.
Hennala, L., H. Melkas, and S. Pekkarinen. 2013. “Situated Service-oriented Modeling.” In Best
Practices and New Perspectives in Service Science and Management, edited by P. Ordonez De
Pablos and R. D. Tennyson, 54–75. Pennsylvania: Hershey.
Hill, F., C. Leitch, and R. Harrison. 2006. “Desperately Seeking Finance? The Demand for Finance
by Women-owned and -led Businesses.” An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance 8
(2): 159–182. doi:10.1080/13691060600555347.
Hong, J. C., P. H. Lin, and P. C. Hsieh. 2017. “The Effect of Consumer Innovativeness on Perceived
Value and Continuance Intention to Use Smartwatch.” Computers in Human Behavior 9 (67):
264–272. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.001.
Iacobucci, D., and S. Hoeffler. 2016. “Leveraging Social Networks to Develop Radically New
Products.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 33 (2): 217–223. doi:10.1111/
jpim.12290.
Im, S., B. L. Bayus, and C. H. Mason. 2003. “An Empirical Study of Innate Consumer
Innovativeness, Personal Characteristics, and New Product Adoption Behavior.” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (1): 61–73. doi:10.1177/0092070302238602.
John, D. R. 1999. “Consumer Socialization: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of
Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 26 (3): 183–213. doi:10.1086/jcr.1999.26.issue-3.
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 21

Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford
Press.
Ko, P. C., and V. Buskens, 2011. “Dynamics of Adolescent Friendships: The Interplay between
Structure and Gender.” Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on advances in social
networks analysis and mining (pp. 313–320). Washington, DC.
Koschate-Fischer, N., W. D. Hoyer, N. E. Stokburger-Sauer, and J. Engling. 2018. “Do Life Events
Always Lead to Change in Purchase? The Mediating Role of Change in Consumer
Innovativeness, the Variety Seeking Tendency, and Price Consciousness.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 46 (3): 516–536. doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0548-3.
Kratzer, J., and C. Lettl. 2009. “Distinctive Roles of Lead Users and Opinion Leaders in the Social
Networks of Schoolchildren.” Journal of Consumer Research 36 (4): 646–659. doi:10.1086/
599324.
Kratzer, J., C. Lettl, N. Franke, and P. A. Gloor. 2016. “The Social Network Position of Lead Users.”
Journal of Product Innovation Management 33 (2): 201–216. doi:10.1111/jpim.12291.
Lambert-Pandraud, R., and G. Laurent. 2010. “Why Do Older Consumers Buy Older Brands? The
Role of Attachment and Declining Innovativeness.” Journal of Marketing 74 (July): 104–121.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.5.104.
Leary, M. R., E. S. Tambor, S. K. Terdal, and D. L. Downs. 1995. “Self-esteem as an Interpersonal
Monitor: The Sociometer Hypothesis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (3):
518–530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518.
Lee, S. H., J. Cotte, and T. J. Noseworthy. 2010. “The Role of Network Centrality in the Flow of
Consumer Influence.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (1): 66–77. doi:10.1016/j.
jcps.2009.10.001.
Li, G., R. Zhang, and C. Wang. 2015. “The Role of Product Originality, Usefulness and Motivated
Consumer Innovativeness in New Product Adoption Intentions.” Journal of Product Innovation
Management 32 (2): 214–223. doi:10.1111/jpim.2015.32.issue-2.
Lin, G. C., Z. Wen, H. W. Marsh, and H. S. L. Lin. 2010. “Structural Equation Models of Latent
Interactions: Clarification of Orthogonalizing and Double-mean-centering Strategies.”
Strucutral Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 17 (3): 374–395. doi:10.1080/
10705511.2010.488999.
Little, T. D., N. A. Card, J. A. Bovaird, K. J. Preacher, and C. S. Crandall. 2007. “Structural Equation
Modeling of Mediation and Moderation with Contextual Factors.” In Modeling Contextual
Effects in Longitudinal Studies, edited by T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, and N. A. Card, 207–230.
Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Liu, X., M. Sun, and J. Li. 2018. “Research on Gender Differences in Online Health
Communities.” International Journal of Medical Informatics 111: 172–181. doi:10.1016/j.
ijmedinf.2017.12.019.
Lubbers, M. J. 2003. “Group Composition and Network Structure in School Classes: A Multilevel
Application of the P* Model.” Social Networks 25 (4): 309–332. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(03)
00013-3.
Maden, D., and N. E. Koker. 2013. “An Empirical Research on Consumer Innovativeness in
Relation with Hedonic Consumption, Social Identity and Self-esteem.” Journal of Educational
and Social Research 3 (7): 569–578.
Manojlovic, S., K. Gavrilo, J. M. S. Wit, and P. Markopoulos, 2017. “Exploring the Potential of
Children in Crowdsourcing.” Proceedings at the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, New-York.
Marion, G., and A. Nairn. 2011. ““We Make the Shoes, You Make the Story” Teenage Girls’
Experiences of Fashion: Bricolage, Tactics and Narrative Identity.” Markets and Culture 14 (1):
29–56. doi:10.1080/10253866.2011.541181.
Mayer, C. S. 1980. “Multinational Marketing Research: Methodological Problems.” In
International Marketing Strategies, edited by H. Tborelli and H. Becker, 162–171. New-York:
Pergamon Press.
22 E. GENTINA AND J. KRATZER

Mehra, A., M. Kilduff, and D. Brass. 2001. “The Social Networks of High and Low Self-monitors:
Implications for Workplace Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (1): 121–146.
doi:10.2307/2667127.
Midgley, D. F., and G. R. Dowling. 1978. “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement.”
Journal of Consumer Research 4 (4): 229–242. doi:10.1086/jcr.1978.4.issue-4.
Muller, E., and R. Peres. 2019. “The Effect of Social Networks Structure on Innovation
Performance: A Review and Directions for Research.” International Journal of Research in
Marketing 36 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.05.003.
Muzinich, N., A. Pecotich, and S. Putrevu. 2003. “A Model of the Antecedents and Consequents of
Female Fashion Innovativeness.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1 (5): 297–310.
doi:10.1016/S0969-6989(02)00060-7.
O’Malley, P. M., and J. G. Bachman. 1983. “Self-esteem: Change and Stability between Ages 13 and
23.” Developmental Psychology 19 (2): 257–268. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.19.2.257.
Parker, R. S., C. M. Hermans, and A. D. Schaefer. 2004. “Fashion. Consciousness of Chinese’s,
Japanese and American Teenagers.” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 8 (2):
176–186. doi:10.1108/13612020410537870.
Peplau, L. A., and D. Perlman. 1982. “Perspectives on Loneliness.” In Loneliness: A Sourcebook of
Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by L. A. Peplau and D. Perlman, 1–20. New York:
Wiley-Interscience.
Piacentini, M. 2010. “Children and Fashion.” In Understanding Children and Consumers, edited by
D. Marshall, 202–217. London: Sage Publication.
Potts, J., J. Hartley, J. Banks, J. Burgess, R. Cobcroft, S. Cunningham, and L. Montgomery. 2008.
“Consumer Co-creation and Situated Creativity.” Industry & Innovation 15 (5): 459–474.
doi:10.1080/13662710802373783.
Preacher, K. J., D. D. Rucker, and A. F. Hayes. 2007. “Addressing Moderated Mediation
Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 2 (1):
185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316.
Rahman, S. R., S. Saleem, S. Akhtar, T. Ali, and M. A. Khan. 2014. “Consumers’ Adoption of
Apparel Fashion: The Role of Innovativeness.” Involvement, and Social Values. International
Journal of Marketing Studies 6 (3): 49–63.
Richins, M. L., and S. Dawson. 1992. “A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its
Measurement: Scale Development and Validation.” Journal of Consumer Research 19 (3):
303–316. doi:10.1086/jcr.1992.19.issue-3.
Robins, R. W., H. M. Hendin, and K. H. Trzesniewski. 2001. “Measuring Global Self-esteem:
Construct Validation of a Single-item Measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (2): 151–161. doi:10.1177/0146167201272002.
Roehrich, G. 2004. “Consumer Innovativeness - Concepts and Measurements.” Journal of Business
Research 57 (6): 671–677. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00311-9.
Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. Third ed. New York: Free Press.
Rosenberg, M. 1979. Components of Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale. Conceiving the Self. New York:
Basic Books.
Rossberger, R. J. 2014. “National Personality Profiles and Innovation: The Role of Cultural
Practices.” Creativity and Innovation Management 23 (3): 331–348. doi:10.1111/caim.2014.23.
issue-3.
Ryu, G., and J. K. Han. 2009. “Word-of-mouth Transmission in Settings with Multiple Opinions:
The Impact of Other Opinions on WOM Likelihood and Valence.” Journal of Consumer
Psychology 19 (3): 403–415. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.04.003.
Saettler, M. 2014. “How to Target Gen Z, the New Consumer on the Block, via Mobile”. http://
www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/research/18316.html
Seemiller, C. 2016. “Three Identities of the Generation Z Era: The Inventor.” https://www.linkedin.
com/pulse/3-identities-generation-z-era-inventor-corey-seemiller-phd
Snyder, C. R., and H. C. Fromkin. 1977. “Abnormality as a Positive Characteristic: Development
and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 86
(5): 518–527. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.86.5.518.
 INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION 23

Snyder, C. R., and H. C. Fromkin. 1980. Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference. New York,
NY: Plenum.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., F. T. Hofstede, and M. Wedel. 1999. “A Cross-national Investigation into
the Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness.” Journal of
Marketing 63 (2): 55–69. doi:10.1177/002224299906300204.
Steinberg, L., and A. S. Morris. 2001. “Adolescent development.” Annual Review of Psychology 52:
83–110.
Tajfel, H., and J. C. Turner. 1986. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” In
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by S. Worchel and W. Austin, 16–24. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Tarrant, M., L. MacKenzie, and L. A. Hewitt. 2006. “Friendship Group Identification,
Multidimensional Self-concept, and Experience of Developmental Tasks in Adolescence.”
Journal of Adolescence 29 (4): 627–640. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.012.
Tian, K. T., W. O. Bearden, and G. L. Hunter. 2001. “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Scale
Development and Validation.” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1): 50–66. doi:10.1086/321947.
Truong, Y., and R. McColl. 2011. “Intrinsic Motivations, Self-esteem, and Luxury Goods
Consumption.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (6): 555–561. doi:10.1016/j.
jretconser.2011.08.004.
Van der Hulst, R. 2004. Gender Differences in Workplace Authority: An Emprirical Study on Social
Networks. Groningen: FBO Druk.
Ward, T. B. 1994. “Structured Imagination: The Role of Category in Exemplar Generation.”
Cognitive Psychology 27 (1): 1–40. doi:10.1006/cogp.1994.1010.
Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Workman, J. E., and L. K. Kidd. 2000. “Use of the Need for Uniqueness Scale to Characterize
Fashion Consumer Groups.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 8 (4): 227–236. doi:10.1177/
0887302X0001800402.
Yalkin, C., and R. Elliott. 2006. “Female Teenagers’ Friendship Groups and Fashion Brands:
A Group Socialization Approach.” In Advances in Consumer Research, edited by L. Stevens
and J. Borgeson, 54–65. Vol. 8. Edinburgh: Association for Consumer Research.
Youniss, J., and J. Smollar. 1985. Adolescent Relations with Mothers, Fathers, and Friends. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.