Innovativeness, exploratory behavior, market mavenship, and

Transcription

mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 703
Innovativeness, Exploratory
Behavior, Market
Mavenship, and Opinion
Leadership:
An Empirical Examination
in the Asian Context
Ayalla Ruvio and Aviv Shoham
University of Haifa, Israel
ABSTRACT
The market maven construct, developed by Feick and Price (1987),
has been used in empirical studies in the USA, South Africa,
Germany, Poland, and Hungary. This study extends previous
research by being the first to use the general mavenship concept in
an Asian country (Israel). Furthermore, the study examines market
mavenship and opinion leadership as outcome concepts arising from
exploratory behavior or innovativeness tendencies. Additionally,
the impact of a three-dimensional exploratory behavior concept is
compared to the impact of a unidimensional innovativeness concept
on opinion leadership and market mavenship. Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) was used to test the two nomological models
based on a sample of 142 adult Israeli consumers. Although both
exploratory behavior and innovativeness affect market mavenship
and opinion leadership, the impact of the former is stronger.
Additionally, the impact of the “new brand trial” facet of exploratory
behavior on market maven was comparable to that of innovativeness, whereas its impact on opinion leadership was weaker than
the impact of innovativeness. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24(8): 703–722 (August 2007)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20180
703
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 704
INTRODUCTION
The concepts of opinion leadership and market mavenship have been
important to scholars and practitioners mainly because of their central
contributing role in describing patterns of adoption of innovations by
innovative consumers in the marketplace. Innovative consumers are
more likely to be opinion leaders and mavens than less innovative ones.
Accordingly, both have been used in studies of innovativeness as behavioral outcomes of innovativeness, which is a personality-like concept.
Opinion leaders are consumers who provide information and leadership
to others in making their consumption decisions (Childers, 1986). Hence,
opinion leadership can be defined as one’s behavioral tendency and ability
to influence the purchase decisions of others. Given such a role, opinion
leadership has been studied in marketing for many years (Flynn et al.,
1996; King & Summers, 1970).
The concept of market maven is a later addition to the consumer
behavior literature. Feick and Price (1987, p. 85) defined market mavens
(p. 85) as “individuals who have information about many kinds of products, places to shop, and other facets of markets, and initiate discussions
with consumers and respond to requests from consumers for market
information” and argued for market mavenship as expertise on multiple
aspects of markets for many products and services. The study of market
mavens as separate from opinion leaders is based on three considerations (Feick & Price, 1987). First, mavens might be more useful managerially when information regarding changes in the marketing mix is
involved. For example, they might provide others with information about
changed prices. In contrast, opinion leaders are important diffusers of
information early in the life cycle of a new product or service. Second,
opinion leaders tend to be product-specific, whereas mavens have more
general market knowledge and can be targeted accordingly. Third, the
motives underlying mavenship (obligation to and pleasure in sharing
information and the desire to help others) differ from leaders’ motives
(Price, Feick, & Guskey, 1995; Walsh, Gwinner, & Swanson, 2004). However, market mavenship and opinion leadership are related. Feick and
Price’s domain-specific approach (1987), which is narrower than King
and Summers’s broad, marketplace level conceptualization (1970), is followed here. Thus, “The definition of the market maven includes both
general marketplace knowledge or expertise and influence . . . comparable
to the definition of the opinion leader in that influence derives from
knowledge and expertise, but differs in that the expertise in not product
specific” (Feick & Price, 1987, p. 85). In other words, mavenship is more
general than product- or category-specific opinion leadership.
As will be discussed, this study makes several contributions. First,
whereas Feick and Price (1987) included innovativeness in their model,
this study also included a three-dimensional exploratory behavior concept
(Raju, 1980; Stephens, 1991). Because both mavenship and opinion
leadership play a role in the diffusion of innovations and of market
704
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 705
information, the use of exploratory behavior could provide a finer-grained
assessment of its antecedent role than that accorded by the narrower
conceptualization of innovativeness. Second, the impact of this threedimensional conceptualization of exploratory behavior on opinion
leadership and market mavenship is compared to the impact of a unidimensional conceptualization of innovativeness on these outcomes. Third,
previous studies have been conducted in the USA (e.g., Clark & Goldsmith,
2005; Feick & Price, 1987; Walsh, Gwinner, & Swanson, 2004), India
(for industrial mavens; Nataraajan & Madhukar, 1997), South Africa
(Abratt, Deon, & Nezer, 1995), Germany (consumer mavenship—
Pechtl, 2003; Walsh & Mitchell, 2001; Wiedmann, Walsh, & Mitchell,
2001; e-Mavenship—Walsh, Mitchell, Wiedmann, Frenzel, & Duvenhorst,
2002), China and Korea (in a narrower, price mavenship context; Sternquist, Byun, & Jin, 2004), and Poland (Chelminski & Coulter, 2002; Moore,
Kennedy, & Fairhurst, 2003). The present study tested the nomological
network of market mavenship in a sample of consumers from a new
country—Israel. Israel provides an interesting context for our study
because it differs from countries studied in the past on a number of cultural dimensions, an issue revisited in a later section of this paper.
Market mavenship and opinion leadership are discussed first, followed
by a discussion of their relationships with innovativeness and exploratory
behavior. Then, the study used to test these relationships is described and
the findings reported. A discussion of the research and managerial implications of the findings concludes the paper.
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Market Mavenship
As noted, mavenship encompasses general market knowledge and
potential influence on other consumers (Cal, 2004; Elliot & Warfield, 1993;
Feick, Price, & Higie, 1986; Higie, Feick, & Price, 1987; Lichtenstein &
Burton, 1990; Price, Feick, & Higie, 1987; Williams & Slama, 1995).
According to Feick and Price (1987), market mavens are experts on many
products and couple such expertise with influence. Thus, market mavens
are similar to opinion leaders in that their influence is based on knowledge and expertise; yet, they differ in being experts on many products,
making mavenship more general than the product- or category-specific
opinion leadership. Mavens have been described and profiled in numerous countries and are discussed later (for a recent summary, see Walsh,
Gwinner, & Swanson, 2004).
Demographics. Research established that they are more likely to be
blacks, females, younger, and less educated (Feick & Price, 1987; Higie,
Feick, & Price, 1987; Williams & Slama, 1995). However, others failed to
MARKET MAVENSHIP AND OPINION LEADERSHIP
705
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 706
find some of these differences (USA—Slama & Williams, 1990; Germany—
Wiedmann, Walsh, & Mitchell, 2001) or identified South African and
German males as more likely to be opinion leaders (Abratt, Nel, & Nezer,
1995 and Walsh et al., 2002, respectively). Teen mavens were identified as
influencers of US family decision making (Belch, Krentler, & Willis-Flurry,
2005). Finally, female market mavens were found to be heavier readers of
females’ magazines, direct mail ads (Higie, Feick, & Price, 1987), and
grocery ads (Price, Feick, & Guskey-Federouch, 1988).
Purchasing Behavior. Mavens are likely to be innovative, have higher
media exposure, be, at times, opinion leaders, and perceive themselves
as smart buyers (Feick & Price, 1987; Slama, Nataarajan, & Williams,
1992). They use shopping lists and coupons more frequently and budget
their shopping to a larger extent than others (Price, Feick, & GuskeyFederouch, 1988). Additionally, they are mavens over a variety of products
(Slama & Williams, 1990). Moore, Kennedy, and Fairhurst (2003)
compared U.S. and Polish consumers and found them to differ vis-à-vis
the role of price mavenship. Finally, Pechtl (2003) reported that mavenship
does not affect online grocery shopping adoption for German consumers.
Personality. Compared to other consumers, market mavens tend to
score higher on extraversion and openness, but not on the other three
“big-five” factors (conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness;
Mooradian, 1996). Other personality variables contributing to market
mavenship include higher self-esteem, higher conformity tendency,
higher need for uniqueness, and higher susceptibility to interpersonal
influence (Clark & Goldsmith, 2005).
Like Feick and Price’s seminal work (1987), the focus here is on consumer innovativeness and exploratory behavior, which have been central
concepts in previous studies on opinion leadership and market mavenship. These concepts will be reviewed subsequently.
Opinion Leadership
Like leaders in any domain, consumer opinion leaders are individuals to
whom others look for information and leadership in making consumption
decisions (Childers 1986; Feick & Price, 1987). Opinion leadership refers
to individuals’ tendency to influence the purchase decisions of others
(King & Summers, 1970). “Opinion leadership happens when individuals try
to influence the purchasing behavior of other consumers” (Flynn et al., 1996,
p. 138), making it situation-specific.
Opinion leaders have an impact on others’ attitudes and actions (Arndt,
1967, 1968; Gatignon & Robertson, 1985; King & Summers, 1970; Rogers,
1983). Importantly, unlike the more general trait of mavenship, some
scholars believe that opinion leadership varies by product and that no generalized opinion leadership trait exists (King & Summers, 1970; Langeard,
Crousillat, & Weisz, 1977; Myers & Robertson, 1972). However, others
706
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 707
view opinion leaders as category- (i.e., cosmetics) rather than productspecific (i.e., lipsticks; Darden & Reynolds, 1972; Merton, 1957; Myers &
Robertson, 1972; Shoham, Rose, & Kahle, 1997). Regardless, even if it is
category-specific, it is narrower in scope than mavenship. Thus, the
approach used here to be consistent with both approaches is to assess
opinion leadership for products on which respondents consider themselves to be leaders (see the later section on study scales).
Opinion leaders are technically competent, consume mass media heavily
(Rogers, 1983, p. 27; Summers, 1970), and are socially active (Baumgarten,
1975; Venkatraman, 1989). They are conscious of their appearance, selfcentered, and self-confident (Baumgarten, 1975; Summers, 1970), and
exhibit public individuism (Chan & Misra, 1990).
Feick and Price (1987) argued theoretically and documented empirically that opinion leadership and mavenship are related, but distinct
constructs (see also Clark & Goldsmith, 2005). Their argument was based
on the narrower scope of the former compared to the latter (see also
Coulter, Feick, & Price, 2002). Consequently, both were used in this study
as outcomes of consumer innovativeness and exploratory behavior, which
are reviewed next.
Opinion Leadership, Market Mavenship, Exploratory
Behavior, and Innovativeness
Consumer innovativeness has been a central construct in studies dealing with the diffusion of innovations, often combined with opinion leadership and market mavenship. Most previous research assigned consumers
to one of five adopter classes—innovators, early adopters, early and late
majority, and laggards (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991; Rogers, 1983). This
classification is based on an innovativeness personality trait. Specifically, high-innovativeness consumers tend to be the first or early
purchasers of new products in any product category, such as consumer
electronics, or domain, such as high-tech products (Assael, 1992: 426–451;
Schiffman & Kanuk, 2004: 480–523).
Previous research has documented a positive relationship between
innovativeness and opinion leadership. Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991)
reported that the correlations coefficients between consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership were 0.78 and 0.80 for records and fashion, respectively. Similarly, Flynn et al. (1996) reported a correlation
coefficient of 0.65 in their study of clothing fashion products.
Similar findings have been obtained for the innovativeness-market
mavenship relationship. Although Feick and Price reported weaker
significant correlation coefficients (0.14 to 0.34), Goldsmith, Flynn, and
Goldsmith (2003) reported almost identical relationships between market mavenship/opinion leadership and innovativeness (0.44 and 0.46,
respectively).
Exploratory behavior and innovativeness are related but distinct
constructs (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 1996). Raju (1980) viewed
707
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 708
exploratory behavior as a tendency, aimed to change environmental
stimuli. He recognized seven facets of exploratory consumer behavior,
namely, repetitive behavior proneness, innovativeness, risk-taking, exploration through shopping, interpersonal communication, brand switching, and information seeking. However, a later empirical study (Stephens,
1991) identified only three of the seven as valid and reliable, namely, new
brand trial propensity (corresponding to brand-switching), informationseeking (identical to the original), and cautiousness (corresponding to
risk-taking). New brand trial involves switching brands primarily for
change or variety. Information-seeking refers to showing interest in knowing about various product and brands mainly out of curiosity. Finally,
cautiousness is a preference for avoiding risks or adventures.
Scholars have documented the relationships between components or
manifestations of opinion leadership/mavenship and exploratory consumer behavior. For example, adoption of new products and retail stores,
which are required for becoming opinion leaders or mavens, includes
strong exploratory components (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 1996;
Vankatmaran & Price, 1990). Similarly, curiosity-based acquisition of
information (i.e., reading catalogs and discussing purchases with other
consumers—manifestations of opinion leadership and mavenship) also
contains exploratory tendencies (Price & Ridgway, 1982). Finally, varietyseeking and information-seeking, characteristics of leaders and mavens,
are related with exploratory consumer behavior (Baumgartner &
Steenkamp, 1996).
Importantly, it is not implied here that the [{innovativeness; exploratory
behavior}—{opinion leadership; market mavenship}] relationship is
causal. Moreover, a cross-sectional study such as the present investigation cannot test such a relationship. Yet, consumer innovativeness and
exploratory behavior are seen as behavioral tendencies and opinion leadership and market mavenship as behavioral. Hence, the former are used
as explanatory variables. In sum:
H1: Consumer innovativeness and exploratory behavior are related
positively with market mavenship.
H2: Consumer innovativeness and exploratory behavior are related
positively with opinion leadership.
As was noted, a three-dimensional exploratory behavior construct was
used in this research (new brand trial, information-seeking, and cautiousness/risk-taking: Raju, 1980; Stephens, 1991). This contrasts with
previous unidimensional approaches to operationalizing innovativeness
(Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991). Goldsmith and Hofacker’s general innovativeness scale (1991) appears to be conceptually and operationally
close to the “new brand trial” dimension of exploratory behavior used by
Stephens (1991). Thus, this study was designed to answer the following
research question (RQ):
708
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 709
Model A
New Brand Trial
Market Maveship
Information
Seeking
Opinion
Leadership
Risk-Taking
Model B
Market Maveship
Generalized
Innovativeness
Opinion
Leadership
Figure 1. Market Mavenship and Opinion Leadership Nomological Models.
RQ: Are the impacts of innovativeness and exploratory behavior comparable? Is the impact of the more specific “new brand trial” facet
of exploratory behavior on mavenship and opinion leadership comparable to that of innovativeness?
The models designed to test H1–2 and answer RQ include the threedimensional exploratory behavior (Model A) and the generalized consumer
innovativeness (Model B) as determinants of market mavenship and
opinion leadership. Figure 1 presents the two models.
METHOD
Sample
Data were gathered through a structured questionnaire. Two experienced
student teams were instructed thoroughly in research methodology before
collecting the data in Northern Israel. The two teams selected a total of
709
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 710
300 Israeli consumers in a randomized fashion in shopping and community centers, of whom 142 provided complete questionnaires (44%).
Respondents were 44% males and 56% females and were 37 years
old, on average. As for education, 26% had up to high school education, another 49% had some college or an undergraduate degree, and
25.4% had postgraduate studies. Consistent with the education distribution, income (coded at three levels: below average, average, and
above average) was skewed to the higher level (16%, 32%, and 52%,
respectively). The limitations of the sample will be discussed in a later
section of the paper.
Questionnaire and Scales
The questionnaire included previously used and validated scales. All the
scales used Likert-type items.
First, it included the 6-item market mavenship (Feick & Price, 1987).
In support of the scale’s reliability, Feick and Price (1987) reported an
alpha of 0.82 and item-to-total correlations between 0.48 and 0.65. The
scale was reliable in this research as well (a 5 0.89).
Second, it included a modified version of the 6-item scale used by Flynn
et al. (1996) to measure opinion leadership. Recall that existing research
has viewed opinion leadership as product-specific (King & Summers,
1970; Langeard, Crousillat, & Weisz, 1977; Myers & Robertson, 1972),
whereas others have viewed opinion leaders as category-specific (Darden &
Reynolds, 1972; Merton, 1957; Myers & Robertson, 1972; Shoham,
Rose, & Kahle, 1997). Hence, this study used an operationalization consistent with both approaches and respondents were asked to evaluate
their opinion leadership for products they considered themselves to be
leaders on. This approach is similar in spirit to the scale as used by
Goldsmith (1991) and by Goldsmith, Flynn, and Goldsmith (2003). Consequently, the items were modified by introducing them with “Think of a product you consider yourself an expert on. To what extent do you agree/disagree
that . . . ” This was done to enable respondents to refer to a product they
see themselves as experts on without having to specify a given product.
Flynn et al. (1996) reported that the scale used in their research exhibited acceptable reliability (a 5 0.86). The reliability in our research was
also acceptable (a 5 0.81).
Third, it included the 24 items used by Stephens (1991; based on Raju,
1980) to operationalize three facets of consumer exploratory behavior.
Eight items were used to operationalize each facet of consumer exploratory
behavior (new brand trial, information seeking, and cautiousness). New
brand trial, information-seeking, and cautiousness had a coefficients of
0.76, 0.73, and 0.75, respectively, in Stephens’s study (1991). The alphas
were 0.80, 0.88, and 0.82 in the present study.
Finally, a general innovativeness scale (six items) was included
(Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991; Goldsmith, et al., 2003). The scale’s reliability
710
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 711
exceeded 0.80 in the original set of studies. In this study, reliability was
acceptable as well (a 5 0.72).
Because the original scales were developed in English, one bilingual
individual translated them into Hebrew. A second bilingual individual,
blind to the originals, back-translated the items into English. Then, a
third bilingual individual, in consultation with the other translators,
assessed the translation. Inconsistencies were discussed and resolved
during this stage. This procedure ensured the cultural and language
equivalency of the scales used.
FINDINGS
Discriminant Validity of Market Mavenship
and Opinion Leadership
Before testing the measurement models and the research hypotheses, the
discriminant validity of the scales for market mavenship and opinion leadership were tested. First, an exploratory factor analysis (with varimax
rotation) on the 12 items of the market maven and opinion leadership
scales was performed. Three factors were extracted, which explained 69%
of the variance. The six market maven items loaded on one factor and the
six opinion leadership items were split into two three-item factors corresponding to the positively and negatively phrased items from the original. However, the scree plot and theory suggest two factors. Therefore,
another factor analysis was used specifying a two-factor solution.
The results of this factor analysis, which explained 59% of the variance,
separated the items to two six-item factors corresponding to market mavenship and opinion leadership with loadings # 0.56. The analysis was also
rerun using oblique rotation, as opinion leadership and mavenship are
related constructs. The results were substantively identical and both
are reported in Table 1. Second, the items comprising each scale were
averaged to form two scales and a correlation coefficient and a confidence
interval were calculated for the two. The correlation was of medium strength
(0.49) and the 99% confidence interval (0.31–0.64) did not include the
value of 1.00. Thus, the discriminant validity of the two outcome constructs is supported. Additionally, the correlation is similar in magnitude
to that reported by Goldsmith, Flynn, and Goldsmith (0.46; 2003).
Measurement Models
Then, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the
data. Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a two-step approach was
used. Two measurement models (discussed below) were tested first followed by tests of the structural models. The results of these models are
described subsequently.
711
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 712
Table 1. Market Maven and Opinion Leadership Items—Rotated Factor
Solution.1
Market maven
Items
MM1
MM2
MM3
MM4
MM5
MM6
OL1
OL2
OL3
OL4
OL5
OL6
Opinion leadership
Orthogonal
rotation
Oblique
rotation
0.67
0.78
0.82
0.76
0.81
0.80
0.69
0.79
0.82
0.79
0.80
0.83
Orthogonal
rotation
Oblique
rotation
0.73
0.81
0.69
0.58
0.57
0.64
0.75
0.83
0.74
0.54
0.50
0.58
1
Only loading above 0.50 are shown.
The measurement models assessed whether the items corresponding
to every scale represented the same latent variable. A measurement
model with three indicators per latent variable is ideal; however, use of
up to five indicators does not complicate the estimation of the model
(Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994). When there are more than five items
measuring a given construct (as is the case for the constructs in this
study), a parceling procedure can be used (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994).
Such a procedure randomly combines items into composites. Although
reducing random errors and simplifying the model, parceling simultaneously maintains the concept of multiple indicator measurement. Hence,
parceling procedures were used for the constructs discussed above. The
items for each were randomly parceled into three composites indicators.
These indicators entered the measurement model as multiple indicators
to estimate their respective latent variables.
The measurement models had acceptable fit measures. Specifically,
fit measures for Model A included a x2/degrees of freedom ration of 2.36
(x2 5 188.78, df 5 80; p # 0.05), well below the recommended level of 5.0
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Similarly, NFI (0.97), RFI (0.95)
and CFI (0.98) were above the recommended 0.90 level, whereas RMSEA
was below the recommended 0.10 level (0.09). Fit measures for Model B
included a x2/degrees of freedom ration of 2.62 (x2 5 62.85, df 5 24;
p # 0.05), below the 5.0 recommended level, NFI (0.98), RFI (0.97), and
CFI (0.99) above the recommended 0.90 level, and RMSEA was at the recommended level of 0.10. Thus, the results of the substantive models were
examined next.
712
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 713
Hypotheses Testing
Notably, the correlation coefficients (see Appendix) provided initial partial
support to the three hypotheses. However, H1 and H2 were tested in
SEM models with market mavenship and opinion leadership as dependent variables and three facets of consumer exploratory behavior (Model A)
or the general innovativeness scale (Model B) as independent variables.
The two models were analyzed without and with a correlation between
mavenship and leadership. Because the results are substantively identical, only the latter are reported.
The results are presented in Table 2. Both models fit the data well.
Specifically, with a x2 of 267.40 (df 5 83; p # 0.01), Model A’s x2/df (3.22)
was below the 5.0 recommended levels. Model A’s NFI (0.95), RFI (0.93),
and CFI (0.97) were above the recommended 0.90 level, whereas RMSEA
(0.13) was slightly above the 0.10 recommended level. Similarly, with a
x2 of 65.85 (df 5 24; p # 0.015), Model B’s x2/df (2.62) was lower than the
5.0 recommended level. Model B’s NFI (0.98), RFI (0.96), and CFI (0.99)
were above the recommended 0.90 level, whereas RMSEA (0.11) was
slightly above the 0.10 recommended level. Model A resulted in R2 of
0.36 and 0.24 for market mavenship and opinion leadership, respectively.
Model B resulted in R2 of 0.23 and 0.54 for market mavenship and opinion leadership, respectively. Thus, the individual impacts of the three
exploratory behavior dimensions (Model A) and the general innovativeness construct (Model B) on mavenship and leadership were examined.
Regarding H1, in line with the previous research reviewed earlier, all
three facets of consumer exploratory behavior (Model A) and the generalized innovativeness construct (Model B) are related with market mavenship positively and significantly ( p # 0.01). In Model A, new brand trial
Table 2. SEM Standardized Results.
Market mavenship
Dependent variable
Independent variable–Model A
New brand trial
Information-Seeking
Risk-Taking
R2
x2 (df, p-value); x2/df;
NFI; RFI; CFI
Independent variable–Model B
Generalized
innovativeness scale
R2
x2 (df, p-value); x2 / df;
NFI; RFI; CFI
g
p#
0.42
0.36
0.22
0.36
0.01
0.01
0.01
g
p#
0.46
0.01
0.10
0.29
20.13
0.19
0.24
267.40 (83, p # 0.05; 3.22; 0.95; 0.93; 0.97)
0.48
0.23
Opinion leadership
0.01
0.74
0.01
0.54
62.85 (24, p # 0.05; 2.62; 0.98; 0.96; 0.99)
713
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 714
(g 5 0.42), information-seeking (g 5 0.36), and risk-taking (recoded from
cautiousness; g 5 0.22) all affected market mavenship positively as
expected. The impact of the generalized innovativeness construct on
mavenship was also positive (g 5 0.48) and significant (p # 0.01). In sum,
H1 was strongly supported.
The data provide some support for H2. In Model A, the new brand trial
facet of consumer innovativeness was a significant predictor of opinion
leadership (g 5 0.46) whereas information seeking (g 5 0.10) and risk
taking (recoded from cautiousness; g 5 20.13) were not statistically significant ( p $ 0.10). The impact of the general innovativeness construct
(Model B) on opinion leadership was positive (g 5 0.74) and significant
( p # 0.01), as expected. Thus, H2 was partially supported.
In sum, the two research hypotheses were mostly substantiated by
the data. The scales used to operationalize opinion leadership and market
mavenship were related positively but exhibited discriminant validity.
Consistent with H1–2, the three facets of consumer exploratory behavior and the general innovativeness construct were related positively with
market mavenship. New brand trial (but not information-seeking or risktaking) and the general innovativeness construct were related with
opinion leadership.
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Discussion
The findings reconfirmed the important role of the market maven
construct and reestablished its distinction from the related concept of
opinion leadership (Feick & Price, 1987). Each captures a different phenomenon. This is important in that it increases the confidence in using
this construct in future research. Hence, scholars should consider including both scales in future research in relevant contexts. However, as will
be discussed below, more research is needed in additional countries and
cultures.
The findings for Model A, which included a three-dimensional conceptualization of consumer exploratory behavior, are discussed first. The
findings concerning the relationships of the three exploratory behavior
dimensions with market mavenship and opinion leadership are illuminating. Specifically, it appears that for individuals to be opinion leaders,
they need to be users of new products/brands, the dimension related to
such leadership. In contrast, for individuals to be market mavens, they
need to be users of new brands (like opinion leaders), but also seek information and be risk-takers. These differences would have been masked if
only innovativeness would have been used.
The discussion on Model B, which included an established generalized scale to assess consumer innovativeness, allows further elaboration
714
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 715
on this issue. Recall that a research question was raised about the use
of innovativeness and exploratory behavior. RQ asked if a multidimensional exploratory behavior construct would explain more of the variance in market mavenship and opinion leadership than a unidimensional
innovation construct. The data provide a mixed set of findings. Specifically, the three-dimensional exploratory behavior construct explained
41% of the variance in mavenship compared to 29% for the innovation
construct. However, the innovation construct explained 59% of the variance in opinion leadership compared to 30% for the three-dimensional
exploratory behavior construct. Thus, it appears that opinion leadership’s relationship with the innovativeness construct is stronger than
with a three-dimensional exploratory behavior construct (new brand
trial, information, and cautiousness). In explaining this pattern, recall that
consumer opinion leaders are individuals to whom others look for leadership before making consumption decisions (Childers, 1986; Feick &
Price, 1987). Opinion leadership is commonly perceived as individuals’
influence over the purchase decisions of others (King & Summers, 1970).
Thus, it is exhibited through active attempts to influence the purchasing behavior of others (Flynn, Goldsmith, & Eastman, 1996). The conceptualization of a generalized innovativeness trait is more closely aligned
with opinion leadership, compared to the three-dimensional exploratory
behavior construct, which includes an information component (which
might not be shared with others) and cautiousness (which is personal and
internal). In parallel, mavenship includes general market knowledge
and potential influence on other consumers (Feick, Price, & Higie, 1986;
Higie, Feick, & Price, 1987; Price, Feick, & Higie, 1987; Williams & Slama,
1995). Feick and Price (1987) argued that the concept of market maven
includes a general marketplace expertise and influence that is not product specific. Because mavenship is more general that opinion leadership,
which tends to be product- or category-specific, the stronger impact of the
three-dimensional exploratory behavior construct is not surprising.
Additionally, it was argued earlier that the general innovativeness
scale appears to be conceptually and operationally close to the “new
brand trial” dimension of the three-dimensional exploratory behavior
construct. This led us to ask if the impacts of the general innovativeness
and the more specific “new brand trial” facet of exploratory behavior on
mavenship and opinion leadership would be comparable. The data suggest
that these impacts are closer for mavenship (gnew brand trial 5 0.42 and
ggeneralized innovativeness 5 0.48), than for opinion leadership (gnew brand trial 5
0.46 and ggeneralized innovativeness 5 0.74). Thus, it appears that innovativeness and exploratory behavior exert similar impacts on mavenship but
innovativeness exerts a stronger impact on opinion leadership than the
impact of the “new brand trial” component of exploratory behavior.
Because the innovation scale is more parsimonious (six items) than the
three-dimensional exploratory behavior scale (24 items), the use of either
in future research should be based on the goal of such research. Beyond
715
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 716
the need to fit the measures to the model used, there is a tradeoff between
parsimony (and questionnaire length) and between explained variance
of market mavenship.
Earlier, the importance of cross-cultural validation of mavenship nomological networks was discussed. As was noted, previous research has been
conducted in the USA, South Africa, Germany, Hungary, and Poland, to
which, the present Israeli study added a sixth country in a new continent. The evidence for the nomological model is important when cultural
differences are accounted for. Hofstede’s work on cultural values (2001)
serves to highlight that mavenship’s nomological network appears to be
universal, irrespective of the positions countries capture along his five
dimensions. Unfortunately, he did not report data on Poland or Hungary
and we use the data on Yugoslavia as a proxy (all were communist at the
time Hofstede collected his data). Regarding power distance, the USA
(40), South Africa (49), and Germany (35) appear to capture low-medium
positions on the continuum. Israel (13), in contrast, is a very low powerdistance country and Yugoslavia (76; proxy for Poland and Hungary) is a
fairly high power-distance country. Findings substantiating mavenship
nomological networks in the face of these differences are important. Hofstede reported (2001) that leadership is more important in low powerdistance cultures. Thus, the role of mavenship (and opinion leadership)
should be more pronounced in Israel, and less so in Yugoslavia (proxy for
Poland and Hungary), compared to other countries. Ranking these countries on uncertainty avoidance puts Yugoslavia (88, proxy for Poland and
Hungary) as the highest, followed by Israel (81), Germany (65), South
Africa (49), and the USA (46). Being able to generalize at such diverse
levels is important in that Hofstede reported that low uncertaintyavoidance cultures are less resistant to change, making the impact of the
“new brand trial” facet of exploratory behavior on mavenship (and opinion leadership) potentially stronger in such countries. As for individualism, the USA is highest (91), followed by Germany (67), South Africa (65),
Israel (54), and Yugoslavia (proxy for Poland and Hungary, 27). Here, too,
these differences are important in light of Hostede’s findings that low
individualism cultures emphasize group decisions and tend to be conservative, potentially reducing the impact on mavenship (and opinion
leadership). Finally, South Africa and Germany were the most masculine
(66), followed by the USA (62), Israel (47), and Yugoslavia (proxy for Poland
and Hungary, 21). Such differences could potentially impact the role of
mavenship (and opinion leadership) because low masculinity cultures
tend to favor joint decision making, potentially reducing their impacts.
In sum, innovativeness/exploratory behavior → mavenship/opinion
leadership studies have been conducted in several countries. Finding
that these relationships hold in these countries and in Israel, in the face
of the many cultural differences across country settings discussed earlier,
provides a strong measure of confidence in the generalizability of the
nomological models used here.
716
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 717
Future Research
Here, future research directions that could incorporate mavenship and
opinion leadership are discussed. One promising direction is studying
both in the context of power bases. Of the power bases discussed by
French and Raven (expert, referent, reward, legitimate, and coercive;
1959), opinion leaders presumably have expert and referent power.
Opinion leaders’ expert power derives from unique product- or categoryspecific knowledge and mavens’ expert power should be more general.
It would be illuminating to examine if both use expert power and how they
use it. Speculatively, both probably use it, but it is based on different
information sources and scope. Similarly, although both probably have
referent power, it should be more important for leadership than for
mavenship.
Future research should examine additional personality behavioral
characteristics that might impact opinion leading and mavenship. For
example, Feick and Price (1987) argued that product involvement in a
category is a predominant explanation for opinion leadership, whereas
mavenship should be predominantly explained by involvement in
the more general marketplace—stores, discounts, coupons, and changes
in marketing mix variables. Future research should develop leader- and
maven-involvement scales. The impact of a general market involvement
scale should be stronger for mavens than for leaders and the impact of a
product-specific involvement scale should be stronger for opinion leaders
than for mavens.
Another direction for future research involves studying the impacts of
cultural values on mavenship and opinion leadership. Two possible directions can be followed. First, in way of cross-cultural assessments, future
research can address the extent to which people from different cultures
are socialized to value individualism and leadership, thus influencing
the manner they seek to become leaders/mavens. Hofstede’s work (2001)
suggests that some countries are more oriented to individualism (versus
collectivism) than other countries. As a country, Israel scored close to the
mid-point of the collectivism-individualism continuum. In contrast, many
South American countries (e.g., Guatemala, Ecuador, and Panama) are
much more collectivistic and many Western countries are much more
individualistic (e.g., Australia, and the United Kingdom; Hofstede, 2001)
compared to Israel and to other nations where mavenship research has
been conducted. Intuitively, consumers in individualistic countries should
exhibit stronger opinion leadership and mavenship tendencies, on
average, than in collectivistic countries. Thus, simultaneous studies in
multiple countries are needed.
A second venue is highlighted by two issues discussed earlier. First,
Yugoslavia’s scores on the four cultural dimensions were used as a proxy
for previous mavenship studies in ex-communist countries (Poland and
Hungary). Further research is needed to develop country-level assessments
717
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 718
for these dimensions for nations not in Hofstede’s study (2001). Additionally, especially in the face of the proxy used, the four countries
where studies have been conducted tend to be low–medium on power
distance, medium–high on uncertainty avoidance, medium–high in
individualism, and medium on masculinity. Future studies can expand
the list of countries to include nations that diverge from this fourdimensional profile.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Several managerial implications arise from the findings, which are especially relevant for positioning. When firms need to target opinion leaders
early in a product life cycle, they should emphasize the new brand trial
facet of exploratory behavior and deemphasize the information seeking
and risk taking facets. The relevant scale points out potential creative
ideas. For example, “when I eat out, I like to try the most unusual items
the restaurant serves, even if I am not sure I would like them” suggests
unusualness as a possible advertising theme. Conversely, “when I see a
new or different brand on the shelf, I often pick it up just to see what it
is like” raises the possibility of “pick it up! Try it on!” advertising theme.
In contrast, when there is a need to target the more general market
mavens, all three facets of exploratory behavior can be used to advantage,
including new brand trial (as earlier), information-seeking and risk-taking.
For example, the information seeking item of “I like to shop around and
look at displays” suggests a “window shopping” advertising theme.
In some cases, recognizing partial overlap of the two groups and an
ensuing need to target both, managers should use separate advertising
along the lines discussed earlier to reach mavens and opinion leaders
effectively. Because separate advertising campaigns might be financially
infeasible for some firms, the safest theme to use would be that of new
brand trial, which was documented in both models reported here.
LIMITATIONS
This research has several limitations suggesting caution in using the
findings. The findings are based on a convenience sample of Israeli consumers. This raises two generalizability issues. First, would the findings
reported here hold for the general Israeli population? Future research is
needed to replicate the findings using representative samples of Israelis.
Second, would the findings presented here generalize to other countries?
Answering this question requires replications of this study with consumers from other nations. As noted earlier, that is especially important
in culturally dissimilar countries with extreme scores on individualism
or collectivism.
718
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 719
REFERENCES
Abratt, R., Deon, N., & Nezer, C. (1995). Role of the market maven in retailing:
A general marketplace influencer. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10,
31–56.
Anderson J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,
103, 411–423.
Arndt, J. (1967). The role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a
new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 291–295.
Arndt, J. (1968). A test of the two-step flow in diffusion of a new product.
Journalism Quarterly, 45, 657–665.
Assael, H. (1992). Consumer behavior and marketing action, Boston: PWS-Kent.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing
multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural
Equations Modeling, 1, 35–67.
Baumgarten, S. A. (1975). The innovative communicator in the diffusion research.
Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 12–18.
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1996). Exploratory consumer buying
behavior: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 13, 121–137.
Belch, M. A., Krentler, K. A., & Willis-Flurry, L. A. (2005). Teen internet mavens:
Influence in family decision making. Journal of Business Research, 58, 569–575.
Cal, Y. R. (2004). The multicultural market maven: A market influencer for a
diverse society. In P. Rose (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the
AAA (pp. 201–207). Miami, FL: AAA.
Chan, K. K., & Misra, S. (1990). Characteristics of the opinion leader: A new
dimension. Journal of Advertising, 19, 53–60.
Chelminski, P., & Coulter, P. A. (2002). Examining polish market mavens and
their attitudes toward advertising. Journal of East-West Business, 8, 77–89.
Childers, T. L. (1986). Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion
leadership scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 184–188.
Clark, R. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Market mavens: Psychological influences. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 289–312.
Coulter, R. A., Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (2002). Changing faces: Cosmetics
opinion leadership among women in the new Hungary. European Journal of
Marketing, 36, 1287–1308.
Darden, W. R., & Reynolds, F. D. (1972). Predicting opinion leadership for men’s
apparel fashions. Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 324–328.
Elliot, M. T., & Warfield, A. E. (1993). Do market mavens categorize brands
differently? In L. McAlister & M. Rothschild (Eds.), Advances in Consumer
Research (Vol. 20, pp. 202–208). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). The market maven: A diffuser of market
information. Journal of Marketing, 51, 83–97.
Feick, L. F., Price, L. L., & Higie, R. A. (1986). People who use people: The other
side of opinion leadership,” In R. J. Lutz (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research
(Vol. 13, pp. 301–305). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Eastman, J. K. (1996). Opinion leaders and
opinion seekers: Two new measurement scales. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 24, 137–147.
719
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 720
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 849–867.
Goldsmith, R. E. (1991). The validity of a scale to measure global innovativeness.
Journal of Applied Business Research, 7, 89–97.
Goldsmith, R. E., Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, E. B. (2003). Innovative consumers
and market mavens. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11, 54–64.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209–221.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper River Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Higie, R. A., Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). Types and amount of word-of-mouth
communications about retailers. Journal of Retailing, 63, 260–278.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
King, C. W., & Summers, J. O. (1970). Overlap of opinion leadership across
consumer product categories. Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 43–50.
Langeard, E., Crousillat, M., & Weisz, R. (1977). Exposure to cultural activities
and opinion leadership. In H. Keith Hunt (Ed.), Advances in consumer research
(Vol. 5, pp. 606–610). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Lichtenstein, D. R., & Burton, S. (1990). An assessment of the moderating effects
of market mavenship and value consciousness on price-quality perception
accuracy. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 17, pp. 53–59). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Mooradian, T. A. (1996). The five factor model and market mavenship. In
K. P. Corfman & J. G. Lynch, Jr., (Eds.), Advances in consumer research
(Vol. 23, pp. 26–33). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Moore, M., Kennedy, K. M., & Fairhurst, A. (2003). Cross-cultural equivalence of
price perceptions between US and Polish consumers. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, 31, 268–279.
Myers, J. H., & Robertson, T. S. (1972). Dimensions of opinion leadership. Journal
of Marketing Research, 9, 41–46.
Nataraajan, R., & Madhukar, G. A. (1997). A quest for the “industrial maven.”
Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 352–362.
Pechtl, H. (2003). Adoption of online shopping by German grocery shoppers. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 13,
145–159.
Price, L. L., Feick, L. F., & Guskey-Federouch, A. (1988). Couponing behaviors
of the market maven: Profile of a super couponer. In M. J. Houston (Ed.),
Advances in consumer research (Vol. 15, pp. 354–359). Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research.
Price, L. L., Feick, L. F., & Guskey, A. (1995). Everyday market helping behavior. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 14, 225–266.
Price, L. L., Feick, L. F., & Higie, R. A. (1987). Information sensitive consumers
and market information. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 21, 328–341.
Price, L. L., & Ridgway, N. M. (1982). Use innovativeness, vicarious exploration
and purchase exploration: three facets of consumer varied behavior. In B. J.
Walker et al., (Eds.), 1982 educators’ conference proceedings (pp. 56–60).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
720
RUVIO AND SHOHAM
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 721
Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship to personality, demographics, and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 272–282.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2004). Consumer behavior. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Shoham, A., Rose, G. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1997). Opinion leadership and self-concept:
A product-type examination. In B. G. Englis & A. Olofsson (Eds.), European
advances in consumer research (Vol. 3, pp. 204–210). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Slama, M., Nataraajan, R., & Williams, T. G. (1992). Market mavens and the
relationship between smart buying and information provision: An exploratory
study. In V. L. Crittenden (Ed.), Developments in marketing science (Vol. 15,
pp. 90–93). Chestnut Hill, MA: Academy of Marketing Science.
Slama, M., & Williams T. G. (1990). Generalization of the market maven information
provision tendency across product categories. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, &
R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 48–52). Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Stephens, N. (1991). Cognitive age: A useful concept for advertising? Journal of
Advertising, 20, 37–48.
Sternquist, B., Byun, S.-E., & Jin, B. (2003). The dimensionality of price perceptions: A cross-cultural comparison of Asian consumers. International
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14, 83–100.
Summers, J. O. (1970). The identity of women’s clothing fashion opinion leaders.
Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 178–85.
Venkatraman, M. P. (1989). Opinion leaders, adopters, and communication
adopters: A role analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 6, 51–68.
Venkatraman, M. P., & Price, L. L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and
sensory innovativeness: Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of
Business Research, 20, 293–315.
Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V.-W. (2001). German market mavens’ decision-making
styles. Journal of EuroMarketing, 10, 83–108.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W., Wiedmann, K.-P., Frenzel, T., & Duvenhorst, C. (2002).
German emavens on internet music sites. In W. J. Kahoe & J. H. Lindgren
(Eds.), Proceedings: Enhancing knowledge development in marketing, AMA
2002 summer educators’ conference (Vol. 13, pp. 435–436). Chicago: AMA.
Walsh, G., Gwinner, K. P., & Swanson, S. R. (2004). What makes mavens tick?
Exploring the motives of market mavens’ initiation of information diffusion.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21, 109–122.
Wiedmann, K. -P., Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V. -W. (2001). The German manmaven:
An agent for diffusing market information. Journal of Marketing Communications, 7, 195–212.
Williams, T. G., & Slama, M. E. (1995). Market mavens’ purchase decision
evaluative criteria: Implications for brand and store promotion efforts. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 12, 4–21.
Note: The order of authors was determined alphabetically.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Aviv Shoham, Graduate School of Management, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel, Tel:+972
4 8249580 Fax: +972 4 8249194, e-mail: ashoham@research. haifa.ac.il.
721
mar248_899_20180.qxd
6/13/07
9:17 AM
Page 722
APPENDIX
Correlation Coefficients.
1. Market Mavenship
2. Opinion Leadership
3. Generalized Innovativeness
4. New Brand Trial
5. Information-Seeking
6. Risk-Taking
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.49**
.37**
.39**
.50**
2.03
.54**
.45**
.31**
2.28**
.53**
.20**
2.35**
.46**
2.51**
2.17*
* Significant at p , .05
** Significant at p , .001
722
RUVIO AND SHOHAM

Innovativeness, exploratory behavior, market mavenship, and

Transcription

Similar documents

Sperreng Middle School

Got Game? - AnswerLab

salih yeşil ahmet kaya exploring the link between innovation

serving together

2:30pm - Lark Hill Nursery School

- TU Berlin

Untitled

Unit 1 SampleMonster Wants to Go to School

Herget Middle School - Urbana School District #116