consumers need for uniqueness- scale development and validation

8/10/2019 Consumers Need for Uniqueness- Scale Development and Validation

1/19

University of Wyoming

Wyoming Scholars Repository

Management and Marketing Faculty Publications Management and Marketing

6-2001

Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: ScaleDevelopment and Validation

Kelly TianUniversity of Wyoming

William O. BeardenUniversity of South Carolina

Follow this and additional works at: hp://repository.uwyo.edu/mgmt_facpub

Part of the Business Commons

is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management and Marketing at Wyoming Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Management and Marketing Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Wyoming Scholars Repository. For more information,

please contact [email protected] .

Publication InformationTian, Kelly and Bearden, William O. (2001). "Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation."Journal ofConsumer Research 28.1, 50-66. hp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/321947
http://repository.uwyo.edu/?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.uwyo.edu/mgmt_facpub?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.uwyo.edu/management_marketing?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.uwyo.edu/mgmt_facpub?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/622?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1086/321947mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1086/321947http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/622?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.uwyo.edu/mgmt_facpub?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.uwyo.edu/management_marketing?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.uwyo.edu/mgmt_facpub?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.uwyo.edu/?utm_source=repository.uwyo.edu%2Fmgmt_facpub%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/19

Journal of Consumer Research Inc.

Consumers Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and ValidationAuthor(s): Kelly Tepper Tian, William O. Bearden, and Gary L. HunterSource: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 1 (June 2001), pp. 50-66Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/321947.

Accessed: 03/03/2014 18:56

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago PressandJournal of Consumer Research, Inc.are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/321947?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/321947?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


3/19

50

2001 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 28 June 2001

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2002/2801-0004$3.00

Consumers Need for Uniqueness: ScaleDevelopment and Validation

KELLY TEPPER TIANWILLIAM O. BEARDENGARY L. HUNTER*

Consumers acquire and display material possessions for the purpose of feelingdifferentiated from other people and, thus, are targeted with a variety of marketingstimuli that attempt to enhance self-perceptions of uniqueness. Becausethe pursuitof differentness (or counterconformity motivation) varies across individuals to in-fluence consumer responses, we develop and validate a trait measure of consum-ers need for uniqueness. Consumers need for uniqueness is defined as an in-dividuals pursuit of differentness relative to others that is achieved through theacquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of de-

veloping and enhancing ones personal and social identity. Following assessmentsof the scales latent structure, a series of validation studies examines the scalesvalidity. The presentation of empirical work is followed by a discussion of howconsumers need for uniqueness could be used in better understanding consumerbehavior and the role consumption plays in peoples expression of identity.

B eing different from others or becoming distinctiveamong a larger group often results from signals con-veyed by the material objects that consumers choose to dis-play. Conceptual models of social nonconformity recognizethat behaviors that render a person different relative to otherpeople may reflect several motivational processes (Nail

1986; Tepper 1997). The display of differentiating materialobjects can be incidental or secondary outcomes from at-tempts to satisfy various motivations or drives. For example,a person driven by independence motivation adheres to in-ternal tastes when making consumer choices. Although sucha choice may at times differentiate the decision maker fromothers, this outcome is incidental to acting consistent withpersonal standards (Nail 1986).

In contrast, the display of differentiating consumer goodscan be the primary, intended outcome of a persons actionsthat are driven by the need to feel different from otherpeople. This need, which is labeled counterconformity mo-tivation (Nail 1986), arises when individuals feel a threat

*Kelly Tepper Tian is associate professor of marketing at the Universityof Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0034 ([email protected]). Wil-liam O. Bearden is professor of marketing and Charles W. Coker Distin-guished Faculty Fellow at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC29208 ([email protected]). Gary L. Hunter is assistant profes-sor of marketing at Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61704([email protected]). Please address correspondence to Kelly Tepper Tian.Funding for the consumer mail survey was provided by a research com-mittee grant from the University of Kentucky. The authors thank formereditors Brian Sternthal and Robert Burnkrant, the associate editor, andreviewers for their guidance, and Rick Netemeyer for helpful suggestions.

to their identity, as occurs when they perceive that they arehighly similar to others (Snyder and Fromkin 1977). Unlikean individual driven by independence motivation, the coun-terconforming individual is influenced by the norm behaviorof others but behaves so as to be in noncongruence withthe norm (Nail 1986). In such instances, an individual mayderive satisfaction from differentiating consumer posses-sions because these alleviate the threat to identity (Snyderand Fromkin 1977). Products and their uses or displays thatbecome classified as being outside of the norm may serveas recognizable symbols of uniqueness or specialness. Theself-concept of an individual seeking to be different fromothers will be sustained and buoyed if he believes the goodhe has purchased is recognized publicly and classified in amanner that matches and supports his self-concept (Grubband Grathwohl 1967, p. 25).

Relative to other sources of differentiation, differentnessthat results from counterconformity motivation has broaderimportance for understanding consumer behavior, particu-

larly reactions to the commercialization and popularizationof product offerings. To appeal to individuals desire to bedifferent from others, marketers develop advertising mes-sages that employ product-scarcity appeals, uniqueness ap-peals, and appeals to breaking the rules of ones referencegroup (Frank 1997; Lynn and Harris 1997; Snyder 1992;Thompson and Haytko 1997). Snyder (1992) suggests thatmarketers exploit individuals counterconformity motivationby stimulating a consumer catch-22: marketers advertise thata product, brand, or style enhances ones uniqueness; con-

This content downloaded from 129.72.129.147 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:56:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/19

CONSUMERS NEED FOR UNIQUENESS 51

sumers purchase the advertised product in order to expresstheir specialness; the marketers success from these pur-chases stimulates more advertising; and many consumersrespond similarly to the advertising appeal such that eachconsumers expectation of specialness is not achieved. How-ever, people are able to resist this force toward conformity

through a million ineluctable, unfinalizable, individualisticdevices (Frank 1997, p. 17).

Illustrative of consumers efforts to resist or counter theacceptance of popularized goods that symbolically conveyconformity, consumers may dispose of goods that becomepopular and repeat the cycle described above in search ofnew and special products, innovations, and emerging fashiontrends (Snyder 1992; Tepper 1997). In phenomenologicalinterviews, Thompson and Haytko (1997, p. 22) found thatattempts to stay ahead in the realm of fashion trends bydiscarding fashions that catch on and seeking emerging in-novations are interpreted as acts of resisting conformity.Consumers also resist conformity with respect to their con-sumer-product displays by purchasing novelty goods, hand-crafted goods, and personalized items. These choices extendthe time that products maintain their uniqueness, as doespurchasing vintage goods or antique goods that are not avail-able in mass but that may be purchased from nontraditionaloutlets (e.g., antique stores, garage sales, second-handstores, swap meets; Tepper 1997). Included among thesenontraditional outlets are internet Web sites through whichconsumers may search and bid in an international market-place for goods that are customized, rare, or no longer beingmanufactured. Augmenting these options, mass customi-zation has arisen from marketers use of computer-facilitatedflexible manufacturing such that consumers may create andcustomize product designs to their own personal specifi-

cations. Consumers have also been able to extend theuniqueness benefits of more commonplace products by cre-atively altering or using them (Tepper 1997), assemblingthem into collections that taken as a whole are unique (seeBelk, Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989), and acquiring and dis-playing in-depth knowledge of these products (Holt 1998).Finally, consumers may attempt to extend the uniquenessof a consumer display by selecting one that few are willingto copy. In illustration, one 18-year-old, who was asked towrite a story about an incident in which she felt differentfrom other consumers, stated that after all her friends copiedher by double-piercing one of their ears, she pierced thesame ear five more times to make sure that they did notimitate her again (Tepper 1997). Thus, consumers driven by

counterconformity motivation may engage in a variety ofuniqueness-seeking behaviors in response to situations thatheighten perceptions of similarity to others.

While counterconformity motivation may be prompted bysituations in which individuals perceive that they are highlysimilar to others (e.g., possessing a formerly little-knownproduct or displaying a rare style that subsequently becomespopular), some individuals experience greater threats to theiridentity than do others as a result of the same situation.These individuals are characterized by an enduring tendency

to seek differentness relative to others. This tendency isexemplified in the comments of one of Thompson andHaytkos (1997, p. 21) interview participants: Usually ifsomething is hot, Ill go out of my way to stay away fromit. Even if I like it at first, if everyones wearing it, I dontwant to be wearing it. Conceptual marketing models depictcounterconformity motivation or the pursuit of differentnessrelative to other people as a trait or personality characteristicthat determines important consumer phenomena, such asconsumers responses to innovative exterior designs of aproduct (Bloch 1995), the fashion decision process, styleselection, style replacement (Miller, McIntyre, and Mantrala1993), and variety-seeking behavior (McAlister and Pes-semier 1982).

Empirical tests of propositions derived from these modelswould be enhanced by a trait measure that captures con-sumers counterconformity motivation with respect to pos-session acquisition and display, or consumers need foruniqueness. In particular, such a measure would enhance the

study of individual differences in consumer behavior andallow the study of how the enactment of consumers needfor uniqueness is prompted by different situations to influ-ence responses to design elements of products and adver-tising messages. Such a measure would further allow ex-amination of how consumers need for uniqueness influ-ences product acquisition behaviors that are tied to attainingdifferentness but that avoid the commercialized counter-culture cycles that are manufactured by marketers. Notably,consumer counterconformity is not simply the antithesis oftrait measures tied to conformity that have been employedin prior consumer research (e.g., attention to social com-parison information and consumers susceptibility to inter-

personal influence; see Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989).Reverse scoring the latter measures would reflect not con-forming, but these measures would not capture the under-lying motivation; therefore, using them would confoundcounterconformity motivation with independence motiva-tion. Further, the need for a measure of consumers needfor uniqueness is supported by the largely disappointing andinconsistent results from prior consumer investigations thathave employed general trait measures of need for uniqueness(Snyder and Fromkin 1977) and individuation Maslach,Stapp, and Santee (1985) borrowed from psychology (seethe review by Tepper [1996]). The limited empirical supportfor the influence of these measured constructs on consumer

behavior may be partially attributed to their content that alsoconfounds motivations for nonconformity (Tepper 1996) andto the lack of empirical support for their respective hypoth-esized latent structures (Tepper 1998; Tepper and Hoyle1996). Accordingly, the current research first defines con-sumers need for uniqueness and the dimensions that com-pose the concept. A series of studies is then reported thatdevelops a measure of consumers need for uniqueness andassesses the new measures latent structure, reliability, andvalidity.



5/19

52 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

CONSUMERS NEED FOR UNIQUENESS

Theoretical Origins

The concept of consumers need for uniqueness derivesfrom Snyder and Fromkins (1977) theory of uniqueness.

According to this theory, the need to see oneself as beingdifferent from other persons is aroused and competes withother motives in situations that threaten the self-perceptionof uniqueness (i.e., situations in which individuals see them-selves as highly similar to others in their social environ-ment). Individuals attempt to reclaim their self-esteem andreduce negative affect through self-distinguishing behaviors.These expressions of uniqueness are sought in differentforms and outlets where the social penalties for being dif-ferent are not severe. Material expressions of ones differ-entness from others are particularly valued because theysatisfy the need for uniqueness without risking severe socialpenalties (Snyder 1992). Snyder and Fromkin (1977) rec-ognize that different individuals evidence varying degrees

of uniqueness motivation. Because individuals may fulfilltheir desire to be unique in a variety of ways (e.g., throughpossession displays [see Belk 1988], style of interpersonalinteraction [see Maslach, Stapp, and Santee 1985], or thedomains of knowledge in which they establish expertise [seeHolt 1995]), they are likely to vary in their tendency tosatisfy their uniqueness motivation through consumer be-haviors and possessions.

Following from uniqueness theory, consumers need foruniqueness should reflect individual differences in consumercounterconformity motivationa motivation for differen-tiating the self via consumer goods and the visual displayof these goods that involves the volitional or willful pursuitof differentness relative to others as an end goal. As such,

consumers need for uniqueness is more specific in naturethan willingness to be individuated (i.e., willingness to standout as different among others), which may serve variousmotivations (Maslach et al. 1985). Consumers need foruniqueness is also distinct from independence, a motivationthat may inadvertently manifest in social differentness as aresult of adhering to ones personal taste (Nail 1986). Fur-ther, as elaborated in Grubb and Grathwohls (1967) workon how consumer goods serve individuals in forming andmaintaining desired self-concepts, consumers need foruniqueness should reflect both self-image and social imageenhancement processes. A unique product may be soughtout to restore a persons self-view as one who is differentfrom others, such as when an anonymous art collector bids

via the internet or telephone for a rare painting she wantsto display in her bedroom. Self-image enhancement, whichoccurs via the transference of symbolic meaning from apurchased product to the self, results from an internal, per-sonal process. However, the effect on the individual is ul-timately dependent on the consumer good being a publiclyrecognized symbol. Because of its recognized meaning, aunique product can be used to gain desired evaluations fromothers (i.e., a social image as one who is different) thatfurther enhances self-image.

Conceptual Definition

Accordingly, consumers need for uniqueness is definedas the trait of pursuing differentness relative to othersthrough the acquisition, utilization, and disposition of con-sumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing

ones self-image and social image. Consumer goods usedfor satisfying counterconformity motivations refer to prod-uct categories, brands, and versions or styles. Based on need-for-uniqueness theory, nonconformity research, and the con-sumer behavior literature, consumers need for uniquenessis conceptualized as subsuming three behavioral manifes-tations or dimensions.

Creative Choice Counterconformity. In Western cul-ture, expressing ones differentness from others, individu-ality, or unique identity requires creating a personal stylevia material goods that represent the self (Kron 1983). Re-flecting ones personal style in material displays is accom-plished through the purchase of original, novel, or unique

consumer goods (Kron 1983) or via the decorative collec-tion, arrangement, and display of goods (Belk et al. 1989;Kron 1983). This goal-directed consumer behavior reflectscreative choice counterconformity. Creative choice coun-terconformity reflects that the consumer seeks social dif-ferentness from most others but that this consumer makesselections that are likely to be considered good choices bythese others. The notion that these creative consumer activ-ities are undertaken to establish ones uniqueness parallelssuggestions in the consumer literature and the popular press.McAlister and Pessemier (1982) suggest that a desire forsocial distinction via unusual products influences new prod-uct adoption and variety-seeking behavior. Belk (1988) sug-gests that a traumatic lessening of ones uniqueness and

sense of self accompanies the loss of ones accumulatedpersonal possessions. Consumer magazines commonly fea-ture instructional articles on how to make your home sayyou and what you can do to develop your personal style(Kron 1983, p. 67). While creative consumer choices involvesome risk (Kron 1983), these acts also potentially elicit pos-itive social evaluations of the consumer as being one whois unique (Snyder and Fromkin 1977).

Unpopular Choice Counterconformity. Unpopularchoice counterconformity refers to the selection or use ofproducts and brands that deviate from group norms and thusrisk social disapproval that consumers withstand in order toestablish their differentness from others. Ziller (1964) sug-

gests that if individuals fail to see a means of differentiatingthemselves from others in a socially appropriate manner,they may prefer acts that negatively distinguish them overmore subtle distinctions that are available within the domainof positively valued acts. Breaking rules or customs or chal-lenging existing consumer norms risks social disapproval,including evaluations that one exhibits poor taste. However,similar to the dimension of creative choice counterconform-ity, unpopular counterconformity may also result in an en-hanced self-image and social image. People who break rules



6/19


and risk social disapproval in the service of asserting theirdifferentness often affirm good character and, thus, enhancetheir self-image (Gross 1977). In addition, initially unpop-ular consumer choices may later gain social acceptance andthereby positively distinguish the consumer as an innovatoror fashion leader (Heckert 1989).

Avoidance of Similarity. The third manifestation ofconsumers need for uniqueness, avoiding similarity, refersto the loss of interest in, or discontinued use of, possessionsthat become commonplace in order to move away from thenorm and reestablish ones differentness. Because those in-dividuals who possess a high need for consumer uniquenessshould monitor others ownership of goods in product cat-egories where replacement is expected, avoiding similarityalso refers to devaluing and avoiding the purchase of prod-ucts or brands that are perceived to be commonplace. Dis-position and discontinued product use or purchase to avoidsimilarity to others occurs because consumers success in

creating distinctive self images and social images is oftenshort lived. Because consumer choices, particularly creativechoices, may establish ones uniqueness, such choices arelikely to attract followers who also seek to develop theirspecialness or share a common link with early adoptergroups (Fisher and Price 1992). And, as previously noted,even initially unpopular choices can gain widespread ac-ceptance over time (Heckert 1989).

Consumers who were asked to write narratives about be-ing different as a consumer reported experiencing the dim-inution of their uniqueness via the popularization of bothcreative choices and unpopular choices, to which they re-sponded by disposing of the formerly valued possession(Tepper 1997). As an illustration of the creative choice, one

man reported that he purchased a jacket and bought patchesfrom a supply store in order to create his own unique leatherfighter pilot jacket. However, before he completed assem-bling his jacket, the movieTop Gunpopularized fighter pilot

jackets. He reports that after seeing everyone in my highschool wearing one, it no longer had the same appeal . . .I never did complete the jacket (Tepper 1997, p. 233). Inillustration of the unpopular choice, a high school student,who arrived at school to find the queen of trends wearingthe same shoes as she had, reports, I groaned inside whenI realized that my beautiful brown suede shoesthe onesthat were so big I looked almost like a clownwere instyle! I had prided myself on these shoes because they wereso distinctive and added to my image as that weird smart

girl . . . my nifty suede shoes were no longer special, andI didnt feel special either. I put the shoes in a dark cornerof my closet and havent worn them since (Tepper1997,p. 233). Hence, pursuing social differentness requires a will-ingness to change past consumer behaviors and preferences(via avoidance, disposition, or devaluation). It should benoted that changing from an initially preferred choice to anew one in order to avoid similarity is a criterion for dis-tinguishing counterconformity from other motivations thatincidentally result in being different (Nail 1986).

SCALE DEVELOPMENT

Item Development

An initial pool of 93 items was generated to reflect the

three facets of consumers need for uniqueness. Item gen-eration relied on gleaning published, popular, and theoreticalconceptions of the consumer behavior of individuals desir-ing to be different (e.g., Snyder and Fromkin 1977), ex-amining qualitative data gathered in an exploratory inves-tigation, and converting frequently mentioned descriptionsof unique consumers into items. The content validity of theitems was assessed in two stages (Bearden et al. 1989). First,five judges were given the definition of each dimension, arelated explanation, and an example item. The judges werethen asked to allocate the statements to one of the threedimensions or to a not applicable category. After elimi-nating items that did not receive the appropriate categori-zation by at least four of the five judges, 74 items remained,

and these were submitted to four other judges. The secondpanel of judges was given the definition for each dimension,and each judge was asked to rate each statement as beingclearly representative, somewhat representative, or not rep-resentative of the dimension. Items evaluated as clearly rep-resentative by three judges and as no worse than somewhatrepresentative by a fourth judge were retained. This processeliminated 12 items, leaving 62 items. Redundant items wereeliminated at this point such that 15 items for each dimen-sion remained. Each item was formatted into a five-point(strongly agree to strongly disagree) Likert-type responsescale. Items for the three dimensions were interspersed inall subsequent questionnaires.

Samples for Scale Development and Assessmentof the Latent Structure

The first sample consisted of 273 undergraduate businessstudents (119 females and 154 males). The students wererecruited via an opportunity to win a raffle for one of severalgift certificates for a music compact disc (to be awarded inthe proportion of one per 15 respondents). The second, moreheterogeneous, sample was obtained through a mail survey.Using the telephone directory of a Midwestern city as asampling frame, 1,650 households were randomly selectedand precontacted by phone to request a family members

participation in the mail survey (213 numbers were lateridentified as businesses). Participants were promised con-fidentiality of their responses. Of 1,320 completed calls,members from 909 of these households agreed to completethe survey. These contacts were mailed a copy of the ques-tionnaire, a stamped envelope for return of the questionnaire,and (two weeks later) a reminder postcard. Of 621 returnedand usable questionnaires (a 43 percent response rate), 341were completed by women; the average age for the samplewas approximately 45.



7/19


Item Refinement

Using data obtained from the student sample, items thatdid not have corrected item-to-total subscale correlationsabove .50 were deleted. Items that did not have statisticallyhigher correlations with the dimension to which they were

hypothesized to belong in comparison with item correlationswith remaining dimensions total scores were also deleted(Bearden et al. 1989). These analyses resulted in a reducedscale of 31 items11 items each for creative choice coun-terconformity and unpopular choice counterconformity andnine items for avoiding similarity (see Table 1).

ASSESSMENT OF THE LATENTSTRUCTURE, SCALE RELIABILITY, AND

SCALE NORMS

Evaluation of the Latent Structure

Corresponding with its theoretical basis, the new scaleshould exhibit the latent structure of a higher-order factormodel in which each of the three dimensions are first-orderfactors that collectively are accounted for by a higher-orderfactor. Statistically, however, such a model is the equivalentof a three-factor correlated model. Thus, a three-factor cor-related measurement model was examined that hypothesizedthe existence of the three facets in which consumers needfor uniqueness is manifested. Each item was modeled toreflect a nonzero loading on its respective factor and zeroloadings on the other two factors. Tests of model fit werebased on sample covariance matrices.

Distribution of Item Responses. The assumption of anormal distribution associated with the maximum likelihood

method of estimation did not hold for the responses to thescale in either sample. Hence, a scaling procedure, in whichthe Satorra-Bentler chi-square (1988) and robust2(S-Bx )standard errors were obtained with the maximum likelihoodprocedure in the EQS program, was used to estimate the fitof the measurement models to the sample covariance matrix.

The Relative Adequacy of Competing MeasurementModels. Table 1 provides the standardized factor loadingsassociated with the three-factor oblique model. Table 2 pres-ents the model fit indices for the two samples. The three-factor oblique model provided a better fit relative to fivemore restricted competing models in both samples: a one-factor model in which all 31 items loaded on a single factor,

a three-factor orthogonal model in which items load on threeuncorrelated factors, and three two-factor oblique models inwhich all possible pairs of factors were combined to forma single factor that was correlated with the remaining factor.The hypothesized model was the only model to exhibit ac-ceptable fit, as indicated by its and whichCFI TLI ,

S-Bx2 S-Bx2

both exceeded .90, and RMSEA of .053 in the student sam-ple and .057 in the mail survey sample. Each indicator z-value exceeded 6.78 ( and all standardized factorp !.001),loadings were larger than .40. Measurement invariance tests

conducted across the two samples supported the replicabilityof the three-factor oblique structure and the equivalence ofthe factor variances and covariances, which suggests thatthe measure is similarly perceived by students and the moreheterogeneous consumer sample.

Treatment of the Scale in Validation Studies. Theintercorrelations among the three factors, which ranged from.52 to .57 in the student sample and from .56 to .67 in themail survey sample, suggest that the same individuals whoindicate a tendency to satisfy counterconformity motivationsin consumer contexts through creative responses also tendto differentiate themselves via unpopular choices andthrough avoiding similar choices. Thus, the three facets weresummed to form a composite index for purposes of vali-dation. Summing across facets of a latent construct wasdeemed conceptually appropriate given that the multifacetedconsumers need for uniqueness construct should relate toa diverse range of outcome measures better than does any

one component dimension, rendering it more important thanthe lower-level information obtained (see Carver 1989). Fur-ther, as illuminated in the introduction, it is the higher-levelconstruct of consumers need for uniqueness, rather than itsconstitutive dimensions, that is of interest in tests of unique-ness theory and marketing and consumer behavior theories.Thus, the scale validation studies described in this articlewere designed to validate the overall consumers need foruniqueness (the measure is denoted CNFU) rather than theindividual dimensions that compose it.

Scale Reliability and Scale Norms

The estimates of internal consistency reliability, adjustedfor dimensionality (Nunnally 1978), were .94 in the studentsample and .95 in the consumer mail survey sample. Usingsubsamples drawn from the previously described consumermail survey sample, test-retest reliability estimates of .81

and .73 were obtained from adminis-(np 84) (np 346)trations separated by one and two years, respectively. Withrespect to scale norms, the mean scores for CNFU in theconsumer mail survey sample was 2.60 (range(np 621)p 1.064.55), with a standard deviation of .56. Mean scoreson individual items ranged from 2.21 to 3.31, while standarddeviations ranged from .56 to 1.08. Using data from the

consumer mail survey sample, CNFU was not related toeducation or gender at the .01 level of significance. However,CNFU exhibited a modest negative correlation with age

Also, CNFU differed across income(rp .19,p !.01).groups which were represented(F(6,579)p 2.91,p !.01),by the following categories: $5,000$9,999,!$5,000,$10,000$19,999, $20,000$34,999, $35,000$49,000,$50,000$99,999, and over $100,000. However, only themean for the lowest income group differed from(!$5,000)means of the other six groups.



8/19

TABLE 1

FACTOR LOADINGS

Creative choicecounterconformity

Unpopular choicecounterconformity Avoidance of similarity

Factor Order Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2

1. I collect unusual products as a way oftelling people Im different 1 .60 .62

2. I have sometimes purchased unusualproducts or brands as a way to createa more distinctive personal image 5 .65 .68

3. I often look for one-of-a-kind productsor brands so that I create a style thatis all my own 6 .61 .78

4. Often when buying merchandise, animportant goal is to find somethingthat communicates my uniqueness 8 .69 .75

5. I often combine possessions in sucha way that I create a personal imagefor myself that cant be duplicated 9 .66 .65

6. I often try to find a more interesting

version of run-of-the-mill products be-cause I enjoy being original 11 .65 .79

7. I actively seek to develop my per-sonal uniqueness by buying specialproducts or brands 16 .75a .77a

8. Having an eye for products that areinteresting and unusual assists me inestablishing a distinctive image 18 .66 .79

9. The products and brands that I likebest are the ones that express myindividuality 19 .56 .73

10. I often think of the things I buy anddo in terms of how I can use them toshape a more unusual personalimage 24 .63 .79

11. Im often on the lookout for newproducts or brands that will add to my

personal uniqueness 25 .62 .7612. When dressing, I have sometimes

dared to be different in ways that oth-ers are likely to disapprove 2 .63a .61a

13. As far as Im concerned, when itcomes to the products I buy and thesituations in which I use them, cus-toms and rules are made to bebroken 4 .59 .56

14. I often dress unconventionally evenwhen its likely to offend others 10 .67 .59

15. I rarely act in agreement with whatothers think are the right things to buy 12 .57 .40

16. Concern for being out of placedoesnt prevent me from wearing whatI want to wear 17 .57 .50

17. When it comes to the products I buy

and the situations in which I usethem, I have often broken customsand rules 21 .73 .67

18. I have often violated the understoodrules of my social group regardingwhat to buy or own 26 .76 .70

19. I have often gone against the under-stood rules of my social group regard-ing when and how certain productsare properly used 27 .77 .75



9/19


TABLE 1 (Continued)

Creative choicecounterconformity

Unpopular choicecounterconformity Avoidance of similarity

Factor Order Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2

20. I enjoy challenging the prevailingtaste of people I know by buyingsomething they wouldnt seem toaccept 29 .62 .64

21. If someone hinted that I had beendressing inappropriately for a socialsituation, I would continue dressing inthe same manner 30 .60 .49

22. When I dress differently, Im oftenaware that others think Im peculiar,but I dont care 31 .67 .60

23. When products or brands I like be-come extremely popular, I lose inter-est in them 3 .61a .66a

24. I avoid products or brands that havealready been accepted and purchasedby the average consumer 7 .60 .67

25. When a product I own becomespopular among the general popula-tion, I begin using it less 13 .47 .72

26. I often try to avoid products orbrands that I know are bought by thegeneral population 14 .75 .81

27. As a rule, I dislike products orbrands that are customarily purchasedby everyone 15 .77 .74

28. I give up wearing fashions Ive pur-chased once they become popularamong the general public 20 .76 .72

29. The more commonplace a productor brand is among the general popu-lation, the less interested I am in buy-ing it 22 .71 .82

30. Products dont seem to hold much

value for me when they are pur-chased regularly by everyone 23 .59 .77

31. When a style of clothing I own be-comes too commonplace, I usuallyquit wearing it 28 .65 .66

Mb .64 .74 .65 .59 .66 .73

NOTE.Responses were provided on a five-point (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Likert-type scale. Sample 1 is the student sample and sample(np 272),2 is the mail survey sample Significance tests are based on Satorra-Bentler (1988) corrected standard errors. All factor loadings are significant at(np621).p ! .01.

aParameter fixed in order to identify the model.bMean loadings in columns.

CONSTRUCT VALIDATION STUDIES

Beyond assessing the latent structure, internal consistencyreliability, test-retest reliability, and lack of confounding bydemographic variables, we subjected CNFU to a series oftests established for well-designed measures of personality(see Bearden and Netemeyer 1999). Tables 3 and 4 sum-marize the various psychometric tests that were conductedusing 10 independent samples. We report results of tests ofknown-groups validity, response bias, and discriminant va-lidity prior to introducing a series of tests of nomologicalvalidity.

Known-Groups Validity

Known-groups validity of the scale was assessed by in-

vestigating whether the measure could distinguish betweengroups of people who should score high and low on the traitbased on group differences in mean scores. In total, fivetests of known-groups differences were conducted with eachof five chosen comparison groups representing differenttypes of consumer differentiation. The first three groups,which drew members from a heterogeneous population,were compared with the mean for the heterogeneous mailsurvey sample The two remaining(np 621,Mp 2.60).groups drew their members from a student population, and



10/19


TABLE 2

MODEL FIT INDICES FOR COMPETING MEASUREMENT MODELS

Competing models 2S-Bx df CFIS-Bx2 TLIS-Bx2 RMSEAS-Bx2

Student sample (np

:272)1. Null model 3,334.16 465 NA NA NA2. One-factor model 1,403.72 434 .662 .639 .1023. Three-factor or-

thogonal model 820.80 434 .865 .856 .0664. Two-factor

oblique model(AS and CCCcombined) 1,016.98 433 .796 .781 .079

5. Two-factoroblique model(AS and UCCcombined) 1,081.28 433 .774 .757 .084

6. Two-factoroblique model(CCC and UCC

combined) 1,068.98 433 .778 .762 .0847. Three-factoroblique model 664.36 431 .919 .912 .053

Mail survey sample:(np 621)

1. Null model 7,232.15 465 NA NA NA2. One-factor model 2,467.40 434 .700 .678 .1053. Three-factor or-

thogonal model 1,315.99 434 .870 .860 .0784. Two-factor

oblique model(AS and CCCcombined) 1,830.48 433 .793 .778 .089

5. Two-factoroblique model(AS and UCCcombined) 1,668.72 433 .817 .804 .084

6. Two-factoroblique model(CCC and UCCcombined) 1,589.23 433 .829 .816 .081

7. Three-factoroblique model 923.47 431 .927 .922 .057

NOTE. is the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square statistic; is the Comparative Fit Index calculated from is the Tucker-Lewis Fit Index2 2S-Bx CFI S-Bx; TLIS-Bx2 S-Bx2calculated from and is the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation calculated from . NAp not applicable.2 2S-Bx; RMSEA S-BxS-Bx2

thus they were compared against the larger student sampleused previously to validate the latent structure (np

Significantly higher scores were found in273,Mp 2.71).the expected direction for each comparison (see Table 3).

The groups, the type of consumer differentiation that thegroup represented, the data collection locales for the self-

administered survey, and the results were as follows: (1)tattooand body piercing artists, representing the domain of bodilydisplays of uniqueness, were surveyed at their booths at aregional tattooing convention (Mp 3.05,np 39,tp

; (2) owners of customized low-rider auto-3.22,p !.001)mobiles, representing the domain of possessing unique ob-

jects, were surveyed during one of their weekly meetings heldin a parking lot of a local retail establishment (Mp

(3) members of the So-2.99,np 22,tp 3.22,p !.001);ciety for Creative Anachronism (SCA), representing the do-

main of enacting unique consumer performances (via sword-fighting and using medieval-period language and costumes),were surveyed at a regularly scheduled meeting (Mp

(4) a drawing class at-2.91, np 21, tp 2.49, p !.01);tended by art majors, representing the domain of self-man-ufacturing unique consumer possessions, were surveyed dur-

ing a scheduled class (Mp 3.06,np 22,tp 3.15,p !and (5) purchasers of new art posters, representing the.01);

domain of buyers of unique but commercially manufacturedobjects, were surveyed on exiting a university-sponsored artsale (Mp 2.83,np 78,tp 1.89,p !.05).

Tests of Response Bias

The potential confounding of responses to the CNFU scaleby social desirability response bias was assessed, as has



11/19


TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF KNOWN GROUPS VALIDITY TEST RESULTS

Unique group Comparison group

Known-groups

validity tests Sample n Mean SD n Mean SD t-statistic p-value Validity support

Tatoo and bodypiercingartists 1 39 3.05 .70 621 2.60 .56 3.22 !.001 Supported

Owners of cus-tomized lowrider autos 2 22 2.99 .45 621 2.60 .56 3.22 !.001 Supported

Members ofmedievalistreenactmentgroup 3 21 2.91 .44 621 2.60 .56 2.49 !.01 Supported

Student artmajors 4 22 3.06 .45 273 2.71 .50 3.15 !.01 Supported

Student pur-chasers ofunique

poster art 5 78 2.83 .43 273 2.71 .50 1.89 !.05 Supported

recently been advocated in consumer research 1996). Suchan assessment seemed warranted given that making a con-sumer choice for the purpose of being different from othersoften involves changing ones previously displayed pref-erences. That is, endorsing counterconformity behaviors canbe construed as a lack of socially desirable traits of inde-pendence or self-consistency in adhering to ones personaltaste. This assessment was conducted with a sample of 129undergraduate students who completed a survey in whichthe presentation of the new measure was counterbalancedwith two measures of socially desirable responding. Results

indicated that socially desirable responding was not a threatto the measures validity (see Table 4). The CNFU did notcorrelate with the Marlowe-Crowne (MC) socially desirableresponse scale (Crowne and Marlowe 1960) ( )rp .10, NSor impression management (Paulhus 1993) (rp .01, NS).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was evaluated using responses totwo measures that are similar but conceptually distinct fromCNFU: optimum stimulation level (OSL; Steenkamp andBaumgartner 1992) and general need for uniqueness (NFU;Snyder and Fromkin 1977). Specifically, whereas CNFUreflects the desire for differentness relative to other people,

the conceptually similar but distinct construct of OSL re-flects desire for differentness relative to ones prior expe-riences (i.e., self-counterconformity; Nail 1986) that isdriven by the need for sensory and cognitive stimulationrather than social differentiation. Using a sample of 244undergraduate students, we collected the CNFU scale oneweek prior to collecting responses to OSL, which is com-posed of four scales (247 items); these four scales wererotated across the sample (see Steenkamp and Baumgartner1992). Each of the four scales was summed to form four

indicators of the OSL latent variable. Evidencing the newmeasures distinctiveness, CNFU exhibited a moderate dis-attenuated correlation of .54 with OSL (see Bearden andNetemeyer 1999).

Whereas CNFU is a measure of trait counterconformitymotivation in a consumer context, NFU was developed tocapture the general trait of need for social differentness. Thetwo measured constructs reflect a similar process of socialcomparison and moving away from a norm response to ac-quire differentness relative to others, but the two representdifferent domains of satisfying counterconformity motivation

(i.e., consumer contexts vs. verbal interpersonal interactions).Further, NFU reflects both counterconformity and independ-ence motivations (Tepper 1996). Supporting the new mea-sures discriminant validity, data from 261 students, who werepart of the sample used in assessing the latent structure, dem-onstrated that CNFU possessed a moderate positive correla-tion with NFU Based on t-tests of dif-(rp .44,p !.001).ferences in dependent correlations (i.e., correlations drawnfrom the same sample), CNFU correlated more strongly withthe NFU subscale, which reflects counterconformity, desirenot to follow the rules than with the other(rp .46,p !.001,)two NFU subscales, which reflect independence (see Nail1986), willingness to defend ones beliefs (rp .17,p !

and lack of concern for others.01; t(258)p 4.17,p !.001)

reactions (rp .33,p !.001; t(258)p 1.99,p !.01).

NOMOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Evidence of nomological validity is provided by a con-structs possession of distinct antecedent causes, consequen-tial effects, or modifying conditions, and quantitative differ-ences in the degree to which a construct is related toantecedents or consequences or varies across conditions inexhibiting consequential effects (Iacobucci, Ostrom, and



12/19


TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCT VALIDITY TEST RESULTS

Correlation coefficients

Additional construc-

tion validity tests Sample n No. items Mean SD a Individuation NFU CNFU Validity support

Response bias tests:Impression

management 6 129 20 2.76 .55 .77 .01 SupportedMarlowe-Crowne

socially desira-ble responsescale 6 129 30 .42 .16 NA .10 Supported

Discriminant validitytests:

Optimum stimula-tion level 7 244 247 .54*** Supported

General need foruniqueness 8 261 32 .44*** Supported

Nomological validitytests:

Traits:a

Collectiveindividualism 9 121 8 3.76 .44 .63 .19 .19 .39*** Supported

Desire forunique con-sumerproducts 9 121 8 3.40 .72 .85 .19 .17 .65*** Supported

Perceived socialsimilarity as aconsumer 9 121 1 8.12 4.75 NA .13 .10 .17* Partially supported

Self-conceptclarity 9 121 12 3.47 .75 .89 .17 .27** .20* Supported

Consequences:a

Choice ofunique versuscommon exte-rior design 10 235 15 7.81 3.19 NA .08 .17 .36*** Supported

Preference ofunique versuscommon exte-rior design 10 235 15 4.65 1.34 NA .11 .19** .34*** Supported

Situational moder-ators:b

Potential popu-larization ofunique de-sign:

Low 9 63 .33** .28** .42** Partially supportedHigh 9 58 .04 .19 .13

Price:Low 9 61 .04 .06 .05 SupportedHigh 9 60 .16 .07 .24*

NOTE.CNFU is the measure for consumers need for uniqueness; NFU is the general trait measure of need for uniqueness; NA p not applicable.aExcept for its relationship withperceivedsocial similarity, CNFUs correlations withtraits and consequences statisticallydifferedfrom thoseof NFUand Individuation

at the level of significance, based ont-tests of differences in dependent correlations.p! .05bFor tests of situational moderators, correlations are subgroup correlations with selection of differentiating offerings. As hypothesized, CNFUs correlationsacross

the two treatments of potential popularization and of price were statistically different based on z-tests of differences in independent correlations.*p ! .05; one-tail test.**p ! .01; one-tail test.***p ! .001; one-tail test.

Grayson 1995). Established models of nonconformity con-structs provided the framework from which we developedtests of the nomological validity of CNFU. Specifically, mod-els of nonconformity suggest that counterconformity and in-

dependence are two concepts tied to distinct motivationalsources of social differentness encompassed by a superordi-nate construct of voluntary social differentness that reflectswillingness to stand out as different in the service of various



13/19


motivations (Nail 1986; Tepper 1997). Correspondingly, theCNFU scale reflects counterconformity motivation, NFU(Snyder and Fromkin 1977) largely reflects displays of dif-ferentness that derive from independence motivation but isconfounded with counterconformity motivation, and the In-dividuation scale (Maslach et al. 1985) reflects voluntary so-

cial differentness without specific reference to the motiva-tional source (Tepper 1996). We derived and testedhypothesesto assess whether the measure of CNFU, as compared withNFU and Individuation, distinctly operates in the manner pos-ited for counterconformity motivation.

Tests of Trait Antecedents

Individuals driven by counterconformity motivationshould seek or pursue differentness as an end goal and,where possible, often choose to do so in nonconfrontationalvenues (i.e., through choices that do not harm communionwith others, including the selection of unique consumer

products; Snyder 1992). Thus, it is hypothesized that CNFUshould exhibit a positive correlation with collective indi-vidualism, which captures the notion that individuals havedifferent goals from members of their in-group (and thusmake social comparisons in terms of their differentness fromthe in-group) but at the same time desire a sense of socialcohesion with others (Triandis 1995). Moreover, CNFUshould exhibit a positive correlation with desire for uniqueconsumer products (Lynn and Harris 1997). Further, as aresult of pursuing differentness through nonconfrontationalvenues such as the purchase of unique products, individualsdriven by counterconformity motivation should not perceivethemselves to be similar to others with respect to their con-sumer choices (see Kilduff 1992; Snyder and Fromkin

1977). Thus, it is hypothesized that CNFU should exhibita negative correlation with self-perceptions of social simi-larity with respect to consumer choices. Finally, counter-conformity motivation leads individuals to change initialpreferences when this is necessary in order to maintain theirdifference. Continually changing preferences inhibits self-concept clarity, defined as the extent to which self beliefsare clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, andstable (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 141). This is because con-sumer preferences are used to define the self (see Belk 1988;Grubb and Grathwohl 1967). Thompson and Haytko (1997,pp. 2122) have suggested that, for those who constructtheir personal identity through a contrast between their per-ceived fashion orientation and that of others in their social

setting, personal identity does not reflect a stable set ofessential features but is negotiated in a dynamic field ofsocial relations. Consumer goods are used as vehicles ofperpetual identity transformation. Following from theseconceptual arguments, it is hypothesized that CNFU shouldexhibit a negative correlation with self-concept clarity(Campbell et al. 1996). Further, all of the previously hy-pothesized associations with CNFU should be stronger thanthey are for NFU or Individuation, which are not closelytied to counterconformity motivation.

The Sample, Procedure, and Measures. Data werecollected at two separate time periods from 121 students.The first questionnaire requested that the respondent providethe names of 20 fellow students with whom they were fa-miliar, and it then presented measures of CNFU, NFU, andIndividuation with the order rotated across the sample. Two

days following this administration, the respondents com-pleted a second survey. Respondents were first presentedwith a measure of social similarity as a consumer, whichwas adapted from Kilduff (1992). Specifically, each wasgiven the list of 20 names that she or he had provided inthe previous survey and were asked to place a check bythe name of each individual who you think is especiallysimilar to yourself in terms of their consumer behavior.Following this task, measures of self-concept clarity (Camp-bell et al. 1996) and collective individualism (Triandis 1995)were presented. Twelve weeks later, respondents completedthe desire for unique consumer products scale (Lynn andHarris 1997), which reflects the behavioral tendency to pur-chase unique products.

Results. Results are summarized in Table 3, which pres-ents the Pearson correlation coefficients of the three traitswith these measures. The hypotheses were tested using t-tests of differences between correlations for dependent sam-ples. The internal consistency reliability estimates forCNFU, NFU, and Individuation were .95, .70, and .90, re-spectively. Similar estimates for the remaining measuresranged from .63 for collective individualism to .89 for self-concept clarity.

The pattern of correlations provided evidence that CNFUoperates in the manner posited for counterconformity moti-vation, though Individuation and NFU do not. The CNFUexhibited a stronger positive correlation with collective in-

dividualism than did NFU (for CNFU, vs.rp .39,p !.001) or Individuationrp .19, NS;t(118)p 1.87,p !.05 (rp

. As expected, CNFU also.19, NS; t(118)p 2.06,p !.01)exhibited a stronger positive correlation with desire for uniqueconsumer products (for CNFU, vs.rp .65,p !.001 rp

for NFU and for Individuation, both NS,.17 rp .19). The CNFU correlated negativelyt(118)s 5.40,p !.001

with perceived social similarity as a consumer (rp ). This correlation was not stronger than that for.17,p !.05

NFU , but it was statistically different from(tp .61, NS)Individuations positive correlation with this trait (t(118)p

Further, and as hypothesized, CNFU exhibited2.94,p !.01).a negative correlation with self-concept clarity (rp

and NFU exhibited a positive correlation with.20,p !.05),

self-concept clarity These correlations(rp .27,p !.01).were significantly different Indi-(t(118)p 4.32,p !.001).viduation was not correlated with self-concept clarity (rp

such that its correlation also statistically differed.16,NS)from CNFUs correlation (t(118)p 3.70,p !.001).

Tests of Consequential Effects

Prior theory of consumers responses to exterior productdesigns suggests that individual differences in countercon-



14/19


formity motivation should influence the selection of uniqueas compared with more commonplace exterior product de-signs (Bloch 1995). Choosing commonplace designs thatare produced and owned by the masses increases perceptionsof similarity to others. Those who are highly driven bycounterconformity motivation, as is captured by CNFU,

would thus attempt to avoid this similarity and heightenself-perceptions of their differentness through the selectionof unique designs. In contrast, someone who asserts inde-pendence, as is captured by NFU, may prefer either uniqueor more commonplace designs, depending on which bettersatisfies her or his personal aesthetic tastes or standards(Tepper 1997). Similarly, willingness to volunteer to be so-cially different would not always lead to preference forunique exterior product designs, given that various moti-vations for becoming individuated, such as leading a groupof people, may be better served by other distinguishing be-haviors (e.g., displaying novel thoughts or speaking loudly).Thus, we hypothesize that CNFU, as compared with NFUand Individuation, will possess a stronger correlation with

preference for unique as compared with common exteriorproduct designs.

The Sample and Method Design. Undergraduate stu-dents from two universities ( ) were recruited to par-np 235ticipate in two ostensibly separate investigations. The firstinvestigation, presented as one being conducted by research-ers at an out-of-state university, contained measures of CNFU,NFU, and Individuation, with the order of presentation of thethree trait measures rotated. All questionnaires were collectedprior to introducing the second investigation.

The second investigation was described as a study con-ducted by the students own university for the purpose ofcreating a new university subject pool awards program. We

described plans for a new subject pool program in whichstudents could accrue points for participation. The pointscould then be redeemed for products presented in an awardscatalog. To make sure that they included the most enticingincentives in the awards catalog, the program administratorsostensibly were conducting the survey to obtain studentspreferences for one of two versions for each of 20 producttypes. Participation was encouraged by announcing that re-spondents would receive the opportunity to participate in araffle for $20 gift certificates from national mail order com-panies (awarded in the proportion of one to 20). The par-ticipation incentive was offered at this stage rather than priorto the first survey to reinforce that the two studies wereunrelated.

In evaluating the 20 photographed products pairs, studentsviewed one pair at a time and indicated a preference. Eachproduct pair was depicted on a separate page and depicteda different product category. The product categories weredrawn from three domains: recreational goods, practicalgoods, and home furnishings. Relative to other possessiontypes, products within these domains could be identified thatare relevant to most students and to both sexes. An initialcollection of 101 photographed products was compiled thathad won various innovative design awards, as judged by

product design experts. Aided by the input of two students,we screened products within this collection based on theirrelevance to students in terms of use and expense. For prod-ucts that remained, photographs of common exterior designcounterparts were sought from retail catalogs targeting thegeneral population. In a final screening, a collection of ob-

jects that varied in value were compiled (i.e., participantswould expect that they could purchase merchandise of var-ying values depending on their number of accumulatedpoints). Of the 20 products evaluated by the student partic-ipants, 15 depicted a unique exterior design version along-side a common design counterpart. The presentation of theunique design version was alternated throughout the bookletto appear on the left and then on the right of the commonversion. Five filler pairs were included to prevent respon-dents from guessing the studys purpose. These were pre-sented in the first, fifth, tenth, fifteenth, and twentieth po-sitions and presented unique exterior designs for bothproducts in the choice set. The photograph booklet wasprofessionally developed by a computer graphic designer at

a northeastern advertising agency. Photographs of commonand unique product design versions were scanned into acomputer in order to adjust each pair to a monochrome printof uniform size and background and to remove brand names.

Outcome Measures. Outcome measures were createdby coding preferences for a common design, coded zero,and preferences for a unique design, coded one, then sum-ming across product categories to create a single choicemeasure of preference for unique exterior design (the rangewas 015). Respondents also allocated 10 points across thetwo design versions to indicate how much they liked oneversion relative to the other. Points assigned to unique de-signs were summed across product categories to create a

ratings measure of preference for unique exterior design.

Results. Results are summarized in Table 3. Cronbachsalpha coefficients were .95 for the new scale, .85 for NFU,and .88 for Individuation. The results oft-tests of differencesbetween dependent correlations (i.e., correlations drawnfrom the same sample) demonstrate that the new scale doesa better job of predicting consumer personal preferences forunique exterior product designs than do either of the com-peting measures. The CNFU correlated positively and sig-nificantly with the choice measure of personal preferencefor unique exterior product designs and(rp .36,p !.001),it exhibited a stronger correlation with this outcome thaneither NFU or(rp .17,p !.05; t(232)p 2.96,p !.01)

Individuation The(rp .08,NS, t(232)p 3.59,p !.001).same pattern of relationships emerged with the ratings mea-sure of personal preference. The CNFU correlated positivelyand significantly with personal preference for unique ex-terior product designs , and it exhibited(rp .34,p !.001)a stronger correlation with this outcome than either NFU

or Individuation(rp .19,p !.05; t(232)p 2.32,p !.01)A regression test(rp .11, NS; t(232)p 2.93,p !.001).

indicated that CNFU contributed to explained variance be-yond the effects of the competing measures. For the choice



15/19


preference measure, the three-predictor adjusted R-squaredwas .13 the change in R-(F(3, 234)p 11.35,p !.001);squared resulting from adding CNFU as the last predictorwas .10. For the ratings-preference measure, the three-pre-dictor R-squared was .12 (F(234, 3)p 10.29,p !.001) ;and the change in R-squared resulting from the addition of

CNFU was .09.

Tests of Situational Moderators of ConsequentialEffects

Individuals who are driven by consumer counterconform-ity motivation are influenced by situations that shape indi-viduals perceptions of the potential for the unique offeringto gain popularity (Snyder 1992; Snyder and Fromkin 1977).This is because a unique offering that gains popularity losesits ability to distinguish the owner (see Grubb and Grathwohl1967). Thus, when individuals who are motivated to act ina counterconforming manner encounter a unique offering

that they perceive is likely to become popular or common-place, they are less likely to purchase it than when theobjects potential to become popular is low (see Tepper1997). The influence of CNFU on the selection of differ-entiating consumer offerings should be diminished whenthere is higher rather than lower potential for these goodsto become popular. Because NFU does not solely reflectcounterconformity motivation but confounds this with in-dependence motivation and Individuation contains neithermotivation, individuals scoring high on these two scalesshould be less sensitive to a unique objects future popularityand the need to adjust behavior in anticipation of such pop-ularity. Therefore, we hypothesize that the effect of CNFUon individuals selection of differentiating offerings should

be diminished, whereas the effects of NFU and Individuationshould not be diminished, when the differentiating productpossesses higher rather than lower potential to become pop-ular or commonplace.

Individuals possessing a high need to feel different rel-ative to others via consumer goods are willing to pay fordistinctive designs even when there are significant costsinvolved (Bloch 1995). Higher prices contribute to the per-ceived exclusivity of the object beyond that achieved by thephysical design. Further, distinctive designs may representartworks that are sacralized by a high purchase price (i.e.,made special or unique; Belk et al. 1989, p. 24). Thus,counterconforming individuals tendency to select a differ-entiating offering over a commonplace one should be en-

hanced when price is higher as compared with lower. Con-sistent with this expectation, in analyzing critical incidentsfrom consumers who described a real-life experience of be-ing different from other consumers, Tepper (1997) foundthat higher-priced goods were viewed as offering greateropportunity for social differentness by excluding ownershipof the object by the majority. Thus, CNFUs effect on theselection of differentiating consumer offerings should beenhanced when the differentiating product relative to itsnondifferentiating counterpart possesses higher rather than

lower price. Both NFUs and Individuations effects shouldnot be enhanced by higher prices because they do not em-phasize counterconformity motivation.

Participants. Participants were the same as those whoparticipated in the study of trait antecedents (np 121).

They attended a single, one-hour computer laboratory ses-sion that was conducted two weeks following the completionof the trait measures. Following the procedure of Steenkampand Baumgartner (1992), the single lab session incorporatedmultiple investigations.

The Context. The context of the study disguised twoexperiments testing the effects of the hypothesized mod-erators as an investigation of the user-friendliness of com-puter software. At the beginning of the computer lab session,subjects were informed that the survey was sponsored byIKon Group Incorporated, a company that provides com-puter software design and consulting services to variousclients. IKon was conducting the survey to obtain feedback

on the ease of use of different on-line ordering programsfor consumers. Subjects were further informed that the pro-grams differed in some of their instructions, answering for-mats, types of product options, and the information that thecomputer provides back to the consumer. In addition, theywere told that, in some instances, options had been limitedto a smaller number in order to shorten the time to completethe study. Instructions stressed that in order for the resultsto be useful, participants should enter their purchase ordersas they would if they were actually buying from the productcategory, because IKon also intended to pass on the productchoices to their clients as potentially useful market in-formation.

The Procedure. The procedure began when, at a sep-arate, appointed time, each subject entered the computer lab.On logging onto the computers, subjects first read back-ground information on IKon. After completing a questionregarding their prior computer experience (a task to enhancethe cover story), participants were exposed to a series ofon-line product-ordering programs that ultimately would beused as Web sites for IKons clients. Each Web site beganwith a screen that provided the company name, logo, andthe products or services it provided. Completing the ordersrequired the subject to make multiple choices between dif-ferentiating and nondifferentiating product offerings.

The Method Design. The method design incorporatedfeatures aimed at minimizing potential confounds. To avoid

order effects, the presentation of the differentiating goodwas alternated across all choices within the computer lab-oratory session to appear on the left and then on the rightof the nondifferentiating good. Differentiating and nondif-ferentiating visual stimuli for each choice situation werescanned into the computer and altered to create uniformsizes across alternatives and to eliminate brand names. Otherchoices between attributes or features that were equivalentin their uniqueness were included to enhance realism andminimize demand characteristics. To enhance the believa-



16/19


bility of the cover story, each program ended with Likert-type questions regarding the user friendliness of the system.Each program was professionally developed using Author-ware Software that was selected for its ability to (1) presentquality visual stimuli, (2) randomly assign subjects to atreatment group for each experiment independent of treat-

ment assignments in the other experiment, and (3) trackparticipants choices and compile these in a data file. TheWeb sites were arranged to avoid carryover effects, which,for instance, could have occurred if the Web sites in whichparticipants were promised feedback from the computer hadbeen presented prior to choice situations in which no feed-back was offered.

The Experiment Manipulating the Potential Popular-ization of a Differentiating Offering. The experimentmanipulating the potential popularization of a differentiatingoffering was administered during a single on-line orderingprogram, entitled Creative Lighting and Lamps. This on-line ordering program allowed consumers to design a lamp

by selecting several component parts. The potential for adifferentiating offering to become popular was manipulatedbetween subjects via textual information provided to sub-

jects at the beginning of the Web site. In the low condition,the computer screen informed participants that the productthat they designed would be compared with the computersdatabase. They would then receive feedback from the com-puter as to whether their design was acceptable. The highcondition was constructed to heighten perceptions that dif-ferentiating offerings would become popular or common-place. The introductory computer screen informed partici-pants that comparisons of designs with the computersdatabase were for the purpose of determining the most cre-ative designs. The designs identified as unique would be

printed in the companys mail brochure and displayed ontheir Web site, thus potentially popularizing the design.

The outcome measure of selection of a differentiatingoffering was constructed from the choices participants madefor each of four component parts: the lamp shade shape, thelamp shade color, the lamp shade materials, and the lampshade base. Four options (half differentiating) were providedseparately for the shade shape, color, and base; two options(one differentiating) were provided for the shade material.Each choice appeared on a separate screen. The nondiffer-entiating and differentiating alternatives were selected withthe aid of a professional interior designer based on her per-ceptions of what appeared commonplace in her clientshomes. Professional artists were hired to produce black and

white sketches of the various shapes of lamp shades andbases. Selection of the differentiating consumer offering wasmeasured as the sum of four choices (all scored 0 p se-lection of nondifferentiating offering, and 1 p selection ofthe differentiating offering; range p 04).

Results regarding trait correlations with selection of dif-ferentiating offerings under different conditions of situa-tional variables are presented in Table 3. Tests of hypotheseswere conducted by comparing correlations across levels ofthe manipulation for each trait using z-tests of differences

in independent correlations (i.e., correlations drawn fromtwo different samples). The moderating role of potentialpopularization of a differentiating offering in the relation-ship between CNFU and selection of a differentiating of-fering was supported. Specifically, the effect of CNFU onselection of differentiating offerings was diminished when

there was a high as compared with low potential that thedifferentiating selections would become popularized. In thehigh potential for popularization of the differentiating de-sign, the correlation coefficient of .13 was nonsignificant,whereas the low condition exhibited a correlation of .42

A similar pattern across the(p !.001; zp 9.06; p !.01).conditions emerged for Individuation, which exhibited cor-relations of .04 and .33 ( ) in the high andzp 8.66,p !.01low conditions, and for NFU, which exhibited correlationsof .19 and .28 Notably, relative to the(zp 2.74,p !.01).other traits, the magnitude of CNFUs correlation with se-lection of differentiating offerings was larger under the con-dition of low potential for popularization.

The Experiment Manipulating Price. The experimentmanipulating price was carried out between subjects acrossfour of the on-line ordering programs via textual informationprovided to subjects along with the visual representation ofthe products. Price for the differentiating offering was pre-sented as either 20 percent higher or lower for the differ-entiating offering as compared with the nondifferentiatingoffering. Participants made four separate choices betweennondifferentiating and differentiating alternatives, with onechoice made in each of the first four on-line ordering pro-grams. The nondifferentiating/differentiating alternativeswere operationalized in terms of (1) brand, (2) color, (3)materials, and (4) overall novelty of the item across fourproduct categories as follows: running sneakers (Adidas and

Nike/Diadora and Mizuno), umbrellas (solid color dome/multicolor dome), cameras (plastic and metal/cherry wood),and bike accessories (a water bottle/novelty water bottle),respectively. Selection of the differentiating offering wasmeasured as the sum of four choices (scored 0 p selectionof nondifferentiating offering and 1 p selection of the dif-ferentiating offering; range p 04).

The pattern of correlations supports the hypothesis thatthe effect of CNFU on individuals selection of differenti-ating offerings should be enhanced when the differentiatingproduct relative to its nondifferentiating counterpart pos-sesses higher rather than lower price (in the higher pricecondition, in the lower price condition,rp .24,p !.05;

). As further hypothesized,rp .05, NS; zp 5.57,p !.01

Individuations and NFUs correlations with selection ofdifferentiating offerings were nonsignificant across bothprice treatments.

SUMMARY

General Discussion

This article reports on the development and validation ofan instrument that measures consumers need for unique-



17/19


ness. Reflecting a latent construct at a high level of abstrac-tion, the new measure that captures trait counterconformitywith respect to consumer behaviors is reflected by threeintercorrelated dimensions: creative choice counterconform-ity, unpopular choice counterconformity, and avoidance ofsimilarity. The summed index exhibits internal consistency

reliability, test-retest reliability over a two-year period,known-groups validity, minimal threat from social desira-bility response bias, discriminant validity, and nomologicalvalidity. The CNFU is a product-oriented scale that is de-vised to correspond with conceptual marketing models ofconsumers responses to exterior product designs (Bloch1995), product fashion cycles (Miller et al. 1993), and va-riety-seeking behavior (McAlister and Pessemier 1982). Assuch, the scale emphasizes visual rather than verbal com-munications of differentness. Future research might examinethe reinforcement of visual displays of consumer uniquenessvia products with verbal communications of consumerdifferentness.

Theoretical Applications

Consumers need for uniqueness may fit into a broadertheory of consumption as an extension of self (Belk 1988).As such, CNFU should be useful in empirical tests of the-ories regarding the origins of counterconformity motivationthat manifests in consumer possession acquisitions and theirdisplay, as well as of theories that model the manner inwhich individuals consume products, experience and resolveconflicts that result from consumer counterconformity mo-tivation, respond to marketing stimuli that employ unique-ness appeals, and make product replacement decisions.

Consumption as an Extension of Self. Consumersneed for uniqueness may fit into an overarching theory ofthe role that consuming material goods plays in peoplessense of identity (cf. Belk 1988). Posited antecedents ofconsumers need for uniqueness may suggest distal ante-cedents in a theory of consumption as an extension of self.Specifically, uniqueness theory suggests that individual dif-ferences in motivation to seek differentness arise from earlychildhood socialization that either emphasizes obedienceand following norms or emphasizes creativity and individ-uality (Snyder and Fromkin 1977). This emphasis is thoughtto be determined, in part, by family size, order of birth, andnumber of same-sex siblings (Chrenka 1983). These pre-dictions have not been investigated by consumer researchersand warrant additional research.

The Ways Individuals Consume Products. Followingfrom Holts (1995) theoretical work, CNFU should be adeterminant of how individuals consume. It would be expec-ted that individuals with a high consumer need for unique-ness would more often engage in the consumption of prod-ucts for purposes of classification rather than experience,integration, or play. Additional research that we have un-dertaken found support for the ability of consumers needfor uniqueness to predict the valuation of important material

possessions for reasons of enhancing social differentness.Future research might examine the extent to which individ-uals express differentness via material goods relative to otherforms of communication, attempt to move goods from therealm of the profane to that of the sacred in order to fosterrecognition of their unique attributes, and make tangible

fleeting experiences via the collection of souvenirs that re-flect the participants uniqueness (see Belk et al. 1989; Holt1995).

Conflicts Arising from Consumer CounterconformityMotivation. Consumers need for uniqueness could beexamined as a trait influencing processes whereby situationsthat elicit consumer counterconformity motivation lead toconflict and acts of conflict resolution (Tepper 1997). Forexample, commercial products marketed for their unique-ness, but which later gain popularity, elicit conflict in theform of an on-going struggle to maintain or assert unique-ness. Among acts of conflict resolution, individuals mayadopt prepurchase strategies for combating copycatting of

unique products, such as combining fashion objects frommultiple retail outlets rather than purchasing ensembles dis-played in the store, importing from larger cities that offera greater selection of merchandise, importing from regionswhere fashions emerge earlier than in the consumers placeof residence, and searching for discontinued goods in an-tique shops and at garage sales. As a second example, somebuying contexts introduce consumer goals that conflict orcompete with counterconformity motivation. Consumercounterconformity goals may compete with family orientedgoals (e.g., buying a differentiating sports car vs. a sportsutility vehicle that better meets family needs) or the desirefor privacy (e.g., a car of a distinctive color in a small townrenders one different but also makes ones actions known

to others). Consumers attempt to resolve the conflicts byeither postponing purchases that satisfy the desire to bedifferent until after purchases that satisfy the competing goal(e.g., putting family needs first) or restricting countercon-formity purchases to product categories for which there areno competing goals (e.g., preserving privacy by restrictinguse of unique goods to private contexts). The CNFU shouldmoderate the influence of perceived conflicts on the en-dorsement of different methods of conflict resolution. Fur-ther, because consumers methods of resolving conflict sug-gest interventions that marketers might devise for use inpromotions and product offerings to assist consumers inresolving these conflicts, CNFU could be used to test theeffectiveness of these interventions among groups that vary

in their consumer counterconformity motivation.

Responses to Marketing Stimuli. Future researchmight also employ CNFU to empirically test other theoret-ical propositions that elaborate how individual differencesin uniqueness motivation determine selections of productstyles. Bloch (1995) proposes that individual differences inthe need for uniqueness influences consumers product se-lections through its effect on affective and cognitive re-sponses to the exterior design. Distinctive designs are more



18/19


likely to be incongruent with the taste preferences of con-sumers with low uniqueness needs, leading to negative af-fective reactions (e.g., a design is perceived to be in poortaste), negative cognitive responses (e.g., undesirable prod-uct-related beliefs), and the rejection of the product. Thus,future research might test Blochs (1995) conceptual model

by examining the mediating role of affective and cognitiveresponses to designs in the relationship between CNFU andselection of products with distinctive versus common ex-terior designs.

Product Replacement. The theoretical model of thefashion process (Miller et al. 1993) suggests that, after mak-ing product selections, consumers continue to check thestyles adopted by others. Uniqueness theory and counter-conformity research suggest that, for individuals with a highconsumer need for uniqueness, satisfaction with self-ex-pressive products diminishes faster, resulting in changes inpreviously adopted styles or designs and a higher rate ofreplacement of self-expressive products (i.e., shorter inter-

purchase cycles). Longitudinal studies might examine themoderating role of CNFU on product satisfaction, replace-ment, and disposition.

Individual differences in consumers need for uniquenessmight also influence product or style replacement behaviorthrough its effect on consumers optimum stimulation level.McAlister and Pessemiers (1982) theoretical model of va-riety-seeking behavior suggests that individuals desire tobe distinct from others influences variety seeking (e.g., styleor design switching) through its relationship with consum-ers ideal level of stimulation (i.e., novelty, complexity,change). Consumers possessing a high need for uniquenessrelative to others will seek to avoid popular consumer pref-erences, will become more familiar with product offerings

during their search for unique goods, and, thus, will requiregreater novelty or complexity to achieve optimal levels ofarousal. Future studies should assess the mediating role ofoptimum stimulation level in the relationship betweenCNFU and variety-seeking behavior.

Fin

consumers need for uniqueness- scale development and validation

Documents