consumers' need

8/13/2019 Consumers' Need

1/21

Consumers need for uniqueness:short-form scale developmentand cross-cultural validation

Ayalla RuvioGraduate School of Management, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Aviv ShohamGraduate School of Management, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel andFaculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and

Maja Makovec BrencicFaculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate cross-culturally a short-form,consumers need for uniqueness (CNFU) scale. The length of the original scale (31 items) might havehindered its diffusion in research when questionnaire length and respondent fatigue are majorconsiderations.

Design/methodology/approach The paper uses survey-based data from Israel, Slovenia, and thePalestinian Authority and uses a combination of statistical techniques, such as EFA, CFA, andstructural equation modeling.

Findings In general, support was found for the cross-cultural reliability and validity of the new,short-form CNFU scale.

Research limitations/implications Future research can use the short-form scale with additionalconfidence in its cross-cultural reliability and validity.

Practical implications First, since CNFU appears not to be culturally bound, marketers canidentify cross-country segments of high-CNFU individuals and use standardized marketingcampaigns to reach them. Second, marketers of unique products can use the antecedents identifiedin this study to develop and encourage CNFU. Third, the findings can be used to design advertisingcampaigns such as by emphasizing the social context of consumption of high-uniqueness products.

Originality/value An original and first presentation of a cross-cultural validation of aparsimonious CNFU scale.

KeywordsUnique selling proposition, Consumer behavior, Product differentiation,Cross-cultural studies

Paper typeResearch paper

IntroductionAll individuals crave uniqueness to some extent (Fromkin, 1972; Snyder, 1992; Snyderand Fromkin, 1977, 1980), making need for uniqueness (NFU) a universal trait (Burnsand Brady, 1992). NFU affects consumers need for uniqueness (CNFU), exhibitedthrough their acquisition and display of distinctive products (Lynn and Harris, 1997a, b;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

The authors thank Maja Milosevica student at the Faculty of Economics at the University ofLjubljana, for her help in data collection.

Consumers needfor uniqueness

33

Received August 2006Revised January, March 2007

Accepted April 2007

International Marketing Review

Vol. 25 No. 1, 2008

pp. 33-53

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0265-1335

DOI 10.1108/02651330810851872


2/21

Snyder, 1992; Snyder and Fromkin, 1980; Tianet al., 2001). CNFU drives individuals to

pursue dissimilarity through consumption in an effort to develop a distinctive self and

social image (Tian et al., 2001). Thus, the display or use of products can serve as

expressive symbols of uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1977).

Consumers establish their uniqueness through various uniqueness-seeking

behaviors in response to environmental inputs that increase or decrease their

perceptions of similarity to others (Tian et al., 2001). Research has documented that

NFU affects behaviors such as a desire for or customized scarce products, the pursuit

of innovative consumption, and a preference for unique shopping venues (Lynn and

Harris, 1997a, b). CNFUs outcomes include purchasing/displaying novelty, vintage,

antique, personalized, or handcrafted goods, as well as purchasing in nontraditional

outlets such as antique stores, garage sales, and swap meets (Tepper, 1997).

CNFU has been operationalized with 31 items along three dimensions: creative

choice counterconformity, unpopular choice counterconformity, and avoidance of

similarity (Tianet al., 2001; Tian and Mckenzie, 2001). However, this extensive CNFU

scale challenges scholars and respondents, which might have hindered further

research on it. Also, with such a long scale, there is always a concern about redundancy

between closely related items. In addition, Drolet and Morrison (2001, p. 201) argued

that shorter scales reduce monotony, costs, and response bias, and more particularly

an increase in the number of items encourages inappropriate response behavior and

gives rise to positively correlated error term across items within respondents. Thus,

there is a need to develop a short-form and parsimonious CNFU scale that will also

adhere to its three-dimensional conceptualization (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1995).

Additionally, since CNFU (like NFU) has been conceptualized as a universal

cross-cultural trait (Tian et al., 2001; Tian and Mckenzie, 2001), it is essential to establish

its scales cross-cultural validity for promoting cross-cultural research. Cross-culturalvalidation and measurement invariance are necessary for using scales across countries.

Cross-country comparisons and generalized research conclusions depend on study

constructs having the same meaning in different research contexts (Douglas and Craig,

1993; van Herk et al., 2005; Myers et al., 2000; Mullen, 1995; Sharma and Weathers, 2003;

Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).

Previous CNFU studies have been mostly single-country-based and have used

mostly US samples (Tianet al., 2001; Tian and Mckenzie, 2001), raising a concern about

the cross-cultural validity of the findings. Thus, there is a need to test the cross-country

reliability and validity of the CNFU scale. To the extent that a short-form CNFU scale

exhibits acceptable psychometrics, scholars would be able to use it with an added level

of confidence.In sum, this study was designed to contribute to CNFU research in two ways. First,

it develops a short-form CNFU scale that meets the dual challenge of item parsimony

and maintenance of the original conceptualization of the CNFU construct (Steenkamp

and Baumgartner, 1995). Second, this study tests the cross-cultural reliability and

validity of the short-form CNFU scale with data from Israel, the Palestinian authority

(referred to as a country in this paper), and Slovenia (the choice of countries is

explained in a later section).

IMR25,1

34


3/21

Literature reviewConsumers need for uniquenessThis section of the paper provides a brief overview of the CNFU concept. Notably,CNFU has been cited or used in a large number of papers. While a full discussion of

these papers is beyond the scope of this paper, an examination of the literature showsthat very few papers have actually used the CNFU scale or parts of it (Ruvio, 2008;Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006; Clark and Goldsmith, 2005; Goldsmith et al., 2006;Ling, 2005; Tian et al., 2001). Importantly, this situation might be indicative of areification problem. Specifically, when many papers (46 such papers were listed inGoogle Scholar) cite the original CNFU paper (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Donavanet al., 2004; Kim and Drolet, 2003) and only a few use it substantively, a reificationproblem may exist (Lane et al., 2006). Such scarcity of papers might be due to thescales length, further reinforcing the importance of developing a short version of thisscale.

The general NFU theory addressed peoples perceptions of their similarity to others

and their reactions to such perceptions (Snyder and Fromkin, 1977, 1980). While notdiscussed in these original papers, NFU might be a universal need of individuals indifferent cultures. For example, McGuire (1976) recognized several psychologicalmotives for individuals behavior. The one pertinent to NFU is the need for expression,according to which people need to express their individuality to others. At the culturallevel, individualism (IND) is one of the five core dimensions of culture recognized byHofstede (2001). It refers to the relationship between the individual and the collectivitythat prevails in a given society (p. 209). In both cases, NFU might arise either at theindividual or societal level (in which case it would carry through to individualmembers).

Thus, high levels of similarity/dissimilarity to others are perceived by individualsas unpleasant and reduce their self-esteem (Fromkin, 1970, 1972). Thus, people use

affective and behavioral mechanisms to maintain moderate uniqueness. The extent towhich these mechanisms are used depends on the strength of individuals NFU. Forexample, high NFU increases individuals sensitivity to similarity and the ensuingdesire to differ from others (Snyder, 1992). However, this desire is constrained by theneed for social approval (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980). Individuals in search ofuniqueness will tend to exhibit it in a positive manner and avoid displays that mightevoke social sanctions. Following the view of the extended self (Belk, 1988), CNFUrecognizes that possessions can be used by individuals as an expression of uniqueness(Snyder, 1992).

Tian et al. (2001, p. 52) defined CNFU as:

. . .the trait of pursuing differences relative to others through the acquisition, utilization, and

disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing ones self-imageand social image.

As such, CNFU allows individuals to enjoy improved self- and social-image.Consumers image is enhanced internally and externally through the use of productswhen they recognize some symbolic meanings in these products (Tian et al., 2001; Tianand Mckenzie, 2001).

CNFU was conceptualized along three dimensions (Tian et al., 2001; Tian andMckenzie, 2001). Creative choice counterconformity refers to individuals ability to use


35


4/21

products in creating personal styles and expressing self-image in a way that is viewedas socially acceptable (Lynn and Harris, 1997a; Tian et al., 2001). Creative choices aremanifested by consumption selections that are likely to be valued as unique andapproved by others in ones social contexts (Snyder and Fromkin, 1977, 1980).

Unpopular choice counterconformity refers to consumers use of products deviatingfrom social norms to some extent. Such choices entail a social disapproval risk butcould still enhance self- and social-image (Tian et al., 2001). Additionally, suchbehaviors can gain social approval over time branding individuals as fashion leaders(Heckert, 1989). Finally, avoidance of similarity implies an effort to avoid using widelyadopted products. It causes consumers to avoid buying or discontinue using productsonce they become diffused (Thompson and Haytko, 1997). Since, a unique image isconsidered desirable, choices (especially creative ones) made by unique individuals areoften adopted by others wishing to develop their uniqueness. This shortens the timespan during which CNFU-based products can be used (Tian et al., 2001).

In sum, Tianet al.(2001) conceptualized CNFU as a three-dimensional consumptiontendency through which individuals express their NFU, operationalized with a 31-itemscale. Unfortunately, with questionnaire lengths at a premium, the existing scale mightbe too long in many research contexts and there could be some redundancy acrossclosely related items. Additionally, no evidence of the scales cross-cultural reliabilityand validity is available. In the next section, antecedents and consequences of CNFUused to validate the short-form CNFU scale are discussed.

MethodSamplesThe study was conducted in Israel, Slovenia, and Palestine. The choice of these nationsreflects important difference. Briefly, Israel represents a modern and developedcountry with mostly Jewish citizens; Slovenia is a country in transition from

communism to a free market with mostly Christian citizens; and Palestine represents apoor and traditional/religious country with mostly Moslem citizens. Thus, thecountries represent highly different cultural contexts.

Data were collected by student teams thoroughly instructed in researchmethodology from convenience samples in shopping centers catering to the localmiddle-classes in these countries. The teams aimed to include respondents withdemographics paralleling the national averages. In total, 467 questionnaires weredistributed. In Israel, 200 were asked to fill out the questionnaire and 170 providedcomplete questionnaires (85.0 percent). In Slovenia, 117 were asked to fill out thequestionnaire and 100 provided complete questionnaires (85.4 percent). In thePalestinian authority, 150 were asked to fill out the questionnaire and 113 providedcomplete questionnaires (75.3 percent). The overall response rate was 82.0 percent.

The Israeli sample was 35 years old on average, close to the average age of the adultpopulation (37.7). The ratio of females (53 percent) in the sample was also similar tothat of the general population (51 percent). Education averaged 15 years and income(compared to the national average) was distributed such that 34 percent were around it,36 percent below it, and 30 percent above it.

The average age of the Palestinian sample was 29, a little below the populationsaverage of 33.4. The percentage of females was 45 percent, close to the populations(49 percent) and education averaged close to 16 years. About 50 percent of the

IMR25,1

36


5/21

respondents earned around the average country income, 35 percent below it, and 15percent above it (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006).

The average age of the Slovene sample was 31, lower than the populations (40),probably due to data being gathered in the younger Ljubljana area. The ratio of

females (55 percent) was close to the populations (51percent). Education averaged 13.3years, slightly higher than the nations (10.7) and income-wise, 17 percent were aroundthe national average, 61 percent below it, and 22 percent above it, averages probablydue to the young age of respondents (Institute for Macroeconomic Analysis andDevelopment, 2006; www.sigov.si/zmar/; Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia,2006; www.stat.si./eng/index.asp).

MeasuresAs was noted, this research aimed to test the nomological validity of the short-formCNFU scale (CNFU-S). Hence, two CNFU antecedents (CSII and publicself-consciousness) and two CNFU consequences (unique consumption behavior andshopping innovativeness) were used to develop a nomological model for CNFU. These

constructs were used based on their documented relationships with CNFU (discussedbelow). The scales are presented in Table I.

ScalesaConceptualdefinition Source

No ofitems Israela

Palestinianauthoritya Sloveniaa Comments

CNFU Tian et al.(2001)

31 0.94 0.93 0.94

NormativeCSII

The degree towhich people arewilling toconform toothersexpectation whenmaking purchasedecisions

Beardenet al.(1989)

8 0.81 0.80 0.73

Public selfconsciousness

The individualsawareness of selfas a social objectwith an effect onothers

Bearden andRose (1990)

7 0.84 0.74 0.62

Shoppinginnovativeness

The degree towhich a person isinterested intrying newbrands, products,

and stores

Raju (1980) 10 0.70 0.62 0.70 Withoutitems no4,6

Uniqueconsumptionbehavior

Developedespecially forthis research,based onTian et al.(2001)

5

Note: aCronbachs a

Table I.Psychometric description

of research variables


37


6/21

Unique consumer behavior scale was the only scale developed for this research. First,we note here that a set of relevant items were used in two earlier studies in Israel(Ruvio, 2008). Since, these studies established that CNFU significantly predicted theindexed scale, it was used as a basis for items in this study as well. Second, Israeli and

Palestinian student teams visited several private homes, talked with their owners, andprobed for possessions that the owners felt were indicative of their uniqueness ashome-owners that were identical or similar in spirit to the original set of items. Third,the list was scanned by two consumer behavior scholars who selected five items aspotentially fitting consumers of all ages in multi-cultural contexts, while maintainingthe meaning of the original scale. A Slovene consumer behavior scholar was consultedabout the relevancy of the items to the local context before using the scale in Slovenia.Responders were asked to indicate whether they did (1) or did not (0) own each item.The items were summed to form a measure of unique consumption, potentiallyranging 0-5.

The original scales were translated by bilingual individuals to the three locallanguages and back-translated to English by other bilinguals, blind to the originals.The three versions were assessed for translation and cultural accuracy in each countryby the two translators and a third bilingual individual. Disagreements were resolvedthrough discussions.

AnalysisThe analysis included three phases, discussed in detail in the Results section. Thefirst assessed the psychometric properties of the original CNFU scale in all threecountries. Based on these results, the scale was shortened. In the second and thirdphases, the short-form CNFU (CNFU-S) scale was tested for validity and cross-culturalinvariance, respectively.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation was used

in all the phases (Byrne, 2001). Goodness-of-fit was assessed by normed-x2,comparative fit index (CFI), normed-fit-index (NFI), non-normed-fit-index (NNFI), androot mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Indices $0.90 andRMSEAs # 0.08 indicate good model fit (Browne and Cudek, 1993; Hair et al., 1998).They are less sensitive to sample characteristics than the x2 test and account forsample size and degrees of freedom.

ResultsPhase I: psychometric assessment and scale reductionBearden and Netemeyer (1999) described the fundamental criteria of good measures(reliability, dimensionality, and construct validity). These criteria were followed in

evaluating the CNFU scale in each country through exploratory factor analyses,reliability tests, and SEM-based confirmatory factor analyses. The latter provideframeworks for assessing theory-driven measurement models and are rigorous tests ofconstruct validity (Anderson and Garbing, 1988; Anderson et al., 1987; Garver andMentzer, 1999; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).

Reliability. Cronbachs a was assessed for each CNFU dimension in each country.The as in the Israeli, Palestinian, and Slovene samples, respectively, were 0.91, 0.98,and 0.91 for creative choice; 0.84, 0.83, and 0.89 for unpopular choice; and 0.93, 0.95, and

IMR25,1

38


7/21

0.93 for avoidance of similarity, all above the required 0.70 level (Nunnally, 1978). Theyindicate little variation in internal consistency across samples.

Dimensionality. For a scale to be valid it must be structured like the original (Tianet al., 2001). SPSS-based confirmatory factor analyses (number of factors was

constrained to three; Hair et al., 1998) with maximum likelihood and varimax rotation(eigenvalues $ 1.0) substantiated the three-dimensional structure of CNFU acrosscountries. Overall explained variance was 54.99, 54.97, and 57.86 percent in Israeli,Palestine, and Slovenia, respectively. These, too, are very similar across samples (Hairet al., 1998).

Construct validity. The full CNFU scale was subjected to CFA with SEM.Goodness-of-fit statistics were satisfactory (NFI 0.897, NNFI 0.932, CFI 0.941,RMSEA 0.056, and x2 2845.10 (df 1293; p # 0.001)) and some item loadingswere low (Israel: 0.365-0.883; Palestine: 0.299-0.884; Slovenia: 0.239-0.886). A possibleexplanation for the low-item loadings may be the cultural specificity of certain items(Douglas et al., 2003). These results suggest that a reduction of the original scale is

necessary.

Scale length reductionInitial guidelines for testing short-form scales were presented by Stanton et al. (2002)and Richins (2004). They offered three criteria: judgmental (an assessment of contentvalidity and ease of use), internal (internal consistency and dimensionality), andexternal (external validity). Regarding the judgmental criterion, three consumerbehavior experts reviewed the items and identified the most representative ones foreach dimension. The experts aimed to select items that were generally phrased whilepreserving the broad definition of CNFU. Since, cross-cultural use requires that the

content of the CNFU construct would be defined conceptually as broadly as possible,context-specific items (e.g. had to do with clothes or the way consumers dress) weredropped. In addition, items that appeared to be redundant or failed to lead to expertsconsensus were also eliminated.

Next, the internal criterion was tested. All CNFU items were subjected to CFA usingSPSS. Low-loadings items (#0.70) were eliminated, as recommended by Garver andMentzer (1999) to ensure that the explained variance by each latent variable will exceed50 percent.

About 12 items survived the judgmental and internal items quality criteria acrosscountries, four for each dimension (Appendix). These sets conform to Bagozzi andHeathertons (1994) guideline for measurement models with 3-5 indicators per latentvariable.

Last, nomological models with the original CNFU and the 12-item CNFU-S scaleswere tested in line with the external criterion. Such tests are needed to assessredundant or narrower-content sets of items, which can reduce nomological validity(Boyle, 1991; Smith and Stanton, 1998; Stanton et al., 2002). Though high-internalconsistency is essential, there may be a tradeoff between scales internal psychometricproperties and their nomological validity (Bagozzi, 1980; Steenkamp and Baumgartner,1995), stressing the importance of external criterion testing. The results fornomological validity are presented below.


39


8/21

Phase II: within-groups validity construct validitySEM CFAs were used to test the reliability, unidimensionality, convergent,discriminant, and nomological validity[1] of the CNFU-S scale (Anderson and

Garbing, 1988; Andersonet al., 1987; deVellis, 1991; Garver and Mentzer, 1999; Gerbing

and Anderson, 1988). All CFAs were tested separately in each country (deVellis, 1991;Garver and Mentzer, 1999), except for nomological validity, which was tested in onemodel for all three countries. Factors were modeled separately, then in pairs, and,finally, as a network (Segars and Grover, 1998).

Unidimensionality and reliability. Unidimensionality is demonstrated when eachitem reflects only one underlying construct (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Bollen, 1989;Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Ping, 2004). Assessing reliability can serve as anindicator of unidimensionality (Bollen, 1989; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Ping, 2004).

Standard factor loadings of observed variables can be used to estimate the reliability ofthe latent variables with values over 0.70 seen as acceptable (Garver and Mentzer,1999). The high-estimated composite reliabilities of the sub-scales in the three countries

(Table II; Israel: 0.83-0.90; Palestine: 0.84-0.92; Slovenia: 0.90-0.91) satisfied the requiredlevels.

Israel Palestinian authority Slovenia

Creative choiceCC1 0.656 0.732 0.756CC2 0.760 0.799 0.883CC3 0.753 0.877 0.878CC4 0.774 0.923 0.716x

2 (df); sig. 10.51 (2) 0.00 15.66 (2) 0.00 2.73 (2) 0.00NFI, NNFI, CFI 0.992; 0.968; 0.994 0.985; 0.956; 0.987 0.997; 0.996; 0.999RMSEA 0.159 0.247 0.061

Composite reliability 0.83 0.90 0.88AVE (percent) 54.4 69.9 65.9Unpopular choiceUC1 0.718 0.738 0.749UC2 0.759 0.877 0.794UC3 0.769 0.876 0.882UC4 0.757 0.744 0.763x

2 (df); sig. 24.39 (2) 0.00 2.24 (2) 0.00 18.23 (2) 0.00NFI, NNFI, CFI 0.983; 0.921; 0.984 0.998; 0.999; 0.999 0.976; 0.992; 0.997RMSEA 0.257 0.033 0.079Composite reliability 0.84 0.88 0.92AVE (percent) 56.4 65.9 60.6Similarity avoidance

SA1 0.761 0.826 0.836SA2 0.848 0.840 0.900SA3 0.825 0.847 0.929SA4 0.874 0.845 0.723x

2 (df); sig. 3.67 (2) 0.16 7.31 (2) 0.03 0.94 (2) 0.62NFI, NNFI, CFI 0.990; 0.977; 0.992 0.993; 0.973; 0.995 0.998; 0.998; 0.999RMSEA 0.07 0.154 0.019Composite reliability 0.90 0.91 0.91AVE (percent) 68.6 70.5 72.4

Table II.Measures ofuni-dimensionality andconvergent validity

IMR25,1

40


9/21

Convergent validity. Convergent validity is established based on the relationshipsbetween latent variables and their indicators. A single latent variable must underlieeach set of items in a separate model for each construct (Anderson et al., 1987; Garverand Mentzer, 1999). Convergent validity is shown when high and significant

parameters are estimated between latent variables and their indicators and with a highlevel of fit of the measurement model for all latent variables. The factor loadings of allitems for all latent variables in the three countries were significant and high(0.656-0.929). Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement models were high (NFI,NNFI and CFI $ 0.90; Dollet al., 1995). While five out of the nine RMSEAs values werehigher than desirable, these results were expected due to the fact that the modelswere tested only one latent variable at a time (Byrne, 2001). Nevertheless, in general,the models demonstrated acceptable fit to the data.

Finally, average variance extracted (AVE total variance explained by a latentvariable in comparison to its measurement error) was used as another indicator forunidimensionality and convergent validity (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Fornell and

Larcker, 1981; Ping, 2004). AVEs $ 50 percent are acceptable as they indicate that thevariance of the measurement error is smaller than the variance captured bythe construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Garver and Mentzer, 1999). AVEs for theCNFU-S sub-dimensions were 55.9-66.9 percent, 66.2-69.6 percent, and 60.6-70.4 percentin Israel, Palestine, and Slovenia, respectively. In short, all scales captured significantvariations in the latent CNFU-S sub-dimensions and all were cross-countryunidimensional.

Discriminant validity. Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which constructsare distinct. Correlations # 0.90 indicate distinct constructs and low correlationsindicate discriminant validity (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Discriminant validity was tested by constraining the correlations for all latentvariables pairs (Anderson and Garbing, 1988) and comparing the x2 of the constrainedand unconstrained models. A x2 difference should be significant for discriminantvalidation (Anderson et al., 1987; Bagozzi et al., 1991; Garver and Mentzer, 1999;Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Three constrained and three unconstrained covariancestructures were estimated and three x2-differences were tested for each country(Table III). All x2-differences were significant (p , 0.001), indicating that each scalewas significantly different from all others. In support of their discriminant validity, theestimated correlations between all construct pairs were 0.58-0.59 in Israel, 0.19-0.57 inPalestine, and 0.34-0.53 in Slovenia. Another discriminant validity test is the normed

x2 (x2 over its degree of freedom) of an unconstrained model. All the normed x2 were

below the suggested cutoff of 5.0, indicating internally and externally consistent scales(Segars and Grover, 1998, 1999).

Assessing the overall model. Table IV reports the results of the overall measurementmodels of the CNFU-S, which mirror those reported earlier. All loadings were high(0.660-0.870 in Israel; 0.744-0.913 in Palestine; 0.701-0.925 in Slovenia); correlationsranged 0.58-0.59 in Israel, 0.18-0.59 in Palestine, and 0.34-0.53 in Slovenia; and fitmeasures ranged 0.967-0.981, with RMSEA 0.057, x2 343.57 (df 153;p # 0.01),and normed x2 2.2. These findings confirm the measurement quality of the items,the stability of the factor solution, and the unidimensionality and discrimination of thescales. Notably, second-order factor models are needed when latent variables


41


10/21

Correlation

estimate

*

Constrained

model

x2(df)

Unconstrainedmodelx

2(df)

D

x2(1)

U

nconstrained

normed

x2

Israel

Creativechoicewith

Unpopularchoice

0.59

92.7

(20)

63.1

(19)

29.5

*

3.3

2

Similarityavoidance

0.59

66.8

(20)

49.6

(19)

17.2

*

2.6

1

Unpopularchoicewith

Similarityavoidance

0.59

88.0

(20)

63.7

(19)

24.3

*

3.3

5

Palestinianauthority

Creativechoicewith

Unpopularchoice

0.21

70.5

(20)

38.2

(19)

32.3

*

2.0

1

Similarityavoidance

0.57

43.3

(20)

39.1

(19)

4.2

**

2.0

6

Unpopularchoicewith

Similarityavoidance

0.19

82.8

(20)

54.7

(19)

28.1

*

2.8

9

Slovenia

Creativechoicewith

Unpopularchoice

0.51

56.5

(20)

49.5

(19)

7.0

*

2.6

0

Similarityavoidance

0.53

24.7

(20)

18.5

(19)

7.0

*

0.9

7

Unpopularchoicewith

Similarityavoidance

0.34

70.1

(20)

53.6

(19)

16.5

*

2.8

2

Notes:Significantat

*p

,

0.0

1;

**p,

0.0

5

Table III.Measures of discriminantvalidity

IMR25,1

42


11/21

correlations exceed 0.70 (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). Since, all correlations were below0.70 in all countries, no second-order analysis was performed.

Nomological validity. As discussed earlier, two antecedents (normative CSII and

public self consciousness) and two consequences (unique consumption behavior and

shopping innovativeness) of CNFU were tested to assess the nomologic validity of

CNFU-S.

Based on previous NFU and CNFU studies, positive relationships were expected

between CNFU-S and its antecedents (Ruvio, 2008; Lynn and Harris, 1997b; Harris and

Lynn, 1996). Lynn and Harris (1997b, p. 611) explained the positive relationship

between CNFU and normative CSII using Brewers (1991) ODT theory and argued that:

. . .people need to fit in and belong as well as to be distinctive and unique. Apparently, people

who satisfy one of these needs through consumer products also use consumer products to

satisfy the other need.

The same explanation underlies the relationship between CNFU-S and public

self-consciousness. CNFU research also demonstrates that high-CNFU people express

their need behaviorally (Ruvio, 2008; Tianet al., 2001; Tian and Mckenzie, 2001). Hence,

unique consumption behavior and shopping innovativeness were used as behavioral

outcomes. Goodness-of-fit measurers indicated good nomological model fit

IsraelPalestinianauthority Slovenia

Factor loadings *

CR1a ! 0.660 0.744 0.860CR2 ! Creative choice 0.750 0.807 0.888CR3 ! 0.771 0.876 0.872CR4 ! 0.762 0.913 0.713OP1a ! 0.731 0.739 0.765OP2 ! Unpopular choice 0.750 0.881 0.780OP3 ! 0.757 0.870 0.859OP4 ! 0.765 0.748 0.709FO1a ! 0.772 0.819 0.836FO2 ! Similarity avoidance 0.851 0.833 0.901FO3 ! 0.817 0.857 0.925FO4 ! 0.870 0.847 0.730Correlations

Creative choice Unpopular choice 0.59 0.21 0.51Creative choice Similarity avoidance 0.59 0.57 0.53Unpopular choice Similarity avoidance 0.58 0.18 0.34

x2 (df) 343.57 (153)

Fit measures for all three countries NFI 0.967NNFI 0.971CFI 0.981RMSEA 0.057

Notes: *All factor loadings and correlations were significant at p , 0.001; aloading that set to beequal to one

Table IV.Factor loadings and

constructs correlations


43


12/21

(x2 352.61 [df 186, p # 0.001]; normed-x2 1.90; NFI 0.971; NNFI 0.979;CFI 0.9986; RMSEA 0.05).

The data fully supported the expected relationships. Positive and significant pathswere found between normative CSII and CNFU-S in Israel (g 0.57), Palestine

(g 0.40), and Slovenia (g 0.30). Similarly, positive and significant paths were foundbetween public self consciousness and CNFU-S in Israel (g 0.22), Palestine(g 0.33), and Slovenia (g 0.25). As for CNFU-Ss consequences, the data was in linewith expectations. Significant and positive paths were found between CNFU-S andunique consumption behavior (gIsrael 0.36,gPalestine 0.30, and gSlovenia 0.27), aswell as with shopping innovativeness ( gIsrael 0.66, gPalestine 0.56, andgSlovenia 0.59). These support the nomological validity of the CNFU-S scale.

Next, the same model with the original CNFU scale was estimated. The resultsmirror those for the CNFU-S scale. The goodness-of-fit measures indicated good modelfit (x2 372.77 (df 186,p # 0.001); normed-x2 2.00; NFI 0.970; NNFI 0.978;CFI 0.985; RMSEA 0.05). A comparison of the two models indicated very minordifferences. Hence, the CNFU-S is an attractive alternative and cross-culturalinvariance was tested next.

Phase III: cross-cultural invariance of the CNFU-S scaleCross-cultural invariance was tested with established procedures (Table V; Mullen,1995; Myers et al., 2000; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). In testing configuralinvariance to assess if the same simple factor loadings structure is obtained in allcountries, no cross-nation constraints were imposed. Metric invariance was assessedby constraining the factor loadings to cross-country equality, designed to identifytranslation equivalence and compare cross-country items scores (Mullen, 1995;Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). Factor invariance was tested by constrainingcross-latent-variables correlations to equality to assess normative validity and overall

measurement structure consistency (Myers et al., 2000). Testing for error invariancewas not needed since the objective was to test theory across countries (Sharma andWeathers, 2003; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).

Configural invariance was tested by model 1, in which no constraints were imposedacross groups. As noted in the overall assessment of the mutli-group model, thisprocedure resulted in acceptable model fit statistics. The data supported theshort-form, three-factor model in all countries, indicating that they exhibit the samesimple factor structure.

Metric invariance (model 2) was tested by constraining the factor loadings of theindicators to equality across countries. This procedure also resulted in acceptable fit(x2 515.1 (df 244), normed-x2 2.11, NFI 0.958, NNFI 0.971, CFI 0.977,and RMSEA 0.054). The x2 difference between the simple structure model and the

equal-loading model (26.5; 22 df) was not significant (p . 0.05). Hence, theunconstrained simple structure model was rejected in favor of the constrained one.Factor loadings are cross-country invariant, indicating improbable translationproblems ( Mullen, 1995).

Factor invariance was tested by constraining the correlations between latentvariables to equality across nations (model 3). Model 3 yielded x2 499.1 (df 228),normed-x2 2.12, NFI 0.959, NNFI 0.969, CFI 0.977, and RMSEA 0.054.The x2 difference between this model and the simple structure model was not

IMR25,1

44


13/21

x2

*

df

x2/df

NFI

NNFI

CFI

RMSEA

Model

co

mparison

Dx

2

Ddf

Dp-valueConclusion

Factorialvalidation

Israel

140.8

51

2.7

6

0.9

69

0.9

69

0.9

80

0.0

97

Palestinianauthority

103.9

51

2.0

2

0.9

68

0.9

74

0.9

83

0.0

96

Slovenia

99.6

51

1.9

5

0.9

62

0.9

71

0.9

81

0.0

99

Crossculturalinvariant

Model1

U

nconstrained

343.6

153

2.2

4

0.9

67

0.9

71

0.9

81

0.0

57

Model2

l

constrained

363.2

171

2.1

2

0.9

65

0.9

74

0.9

81

0.0

54

(2)-(1)

19.6

18

0.3

6

Supported

Model3

f

constrained

351.2

157

2.1

6

0.9

65

0.9

71

0.9

80

0.0

57

(3)-(1)

7.6

4

0.1

1

Supported

Model4

f

,lconstrained

379.2

177

2.1

4

0.9

63

0.9

73

0.9

80

0.0

55

(4)-(2)

16.0

6

0.0

1

N

otsupported

Crossculturalinvarianta

ftermodification

a

Model1

U

nconstrained

343.6

153

2.2

4

0.9

67

0.9

71

0.9

81

0.0

57

Model2

l

constrained

363.2

171

2.1

2

0.9

65

0.9

74

0.9

81

0.0

54

(2)-(1)

19.6

18

0.2

3

Supported

Model3

f

constrained

351.2

157

2.1

6

0.9

65

0.9

71

0.9

80

0.0

57

(3)-(1)

7.6

4

0.1

1

Supported

Model4

f

,lconstrained

371.5

175

2.1

2

0.9

64

0.9

74

0.9

80

0.0

54

(4)-(2)

8.3

4

0.0

9

Supported

Notes:

*Allsignificantatp,

0.0

1;

amodificationincludesunconstrainedcorrelationbetweenavoid

anceofsimilarityandunpopularchoice

Table V.Measurement

equivalence tests(constrained CFAs at

several levels)


45


14/21

significant (Dx2 10.5; 6 df), supporting a rejection of the unconstrained model infavor of the constrained model and indicating invariant factor correlations.

In model 4, factor loadings and correlations between the factors were constrained. Fitstatistics were x2 529.6 (df 250), normed-x2 2.12, NFI 0.957, NNFI 0.970,

CFI 0.977 and RMSEA 0.054. The difference (Dx2 14.5, 6 df) between the modelin which factor correlations were constrained to equality and the model in which theloadings and the factor correlations were constrained to equality was significant. Thecorrelation between unpopular choice and avoidance of similarity was the largestcross-country difference. This correlation was unconstrained and the model wasre-estimated. The revised model fit the data (x2 522.7 (df 248), normed-x2 2.11,NFI 0.957, NNFI 0.971, CFI 0.977 and RMSEA 0.054) and the x2 differencebetween the simple structure model and the semi-constrained, equal-loading andequal-correlations model was 7.6 (4 df). This non-significant difference (p $ 0.05) leadsto accepting the semi-constrained model. In sum, except for one correlation, the factorstructure is consistent across countries and the latent constructs are composed similarlywith respect to the measured variables. These results indicate that, in general, Israeli,Slovene, and Palestinian consumers hold the same factor and correlation CNFUstructure, which is invariant with regards to the internal structure of the constructs.

DiscussionThis paper sought to develop a short-form version of Tian et al.s CNFU scale and todetermine its cross-cultural invariance in Israel, Palestine, and Slovenia. In general, thedata support the within-group validation and the cross-national equivalency of the newCNFU-S scale through SEM models, a powerful and rigorous test of within- andbetween-groups validation (Sharma and Weathers, 2003; Steenkamp andBaumgartner, 1998). The reduced scale also exhibited the same nomological validityas the original. Thus, the improved psychometrics of the reduced scale did not harm

the nomological validity of CNFU.

Theoretical implicationsWhile the role of NFU has been supported cross-culturally, some variations acrosscultures have been reported (Burns and Brady, 1992; Snyder and Fromkin, 1980).Hence, the derived concept of CNFU might also hold different meanings acrosscultures. However, no previous research has systematically studied CNFUcross-culturally. The CNFU-S scale presented here makes two contributions. First, itwas the first reported cross-cultural test of a CNFU nomological model. Second, itsdocumented validity and psychometric properties suggest that it does not have distinctculture-dependent meanings. Thus, CNFU-S can be used safely in future CNFUresearch, enabling generalized and meaningful comparisons, especially in Western

societies (Douglas and Craig, 1993; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). However, itcould also be used in Asian cultures to identify and measure individuals tendency torefrain from expressing their individuality via unpopular choices.

Our findings suggest few cross-country differences. Lower correlations were foundbetween unpopular choices and the other CNFU dimensions in Palestine than in Sloveniaand Israel. These imply that CNFU is represented mainly by its socially safemanifestation for Palestinians, but not for Slovenes and Israelis. Creative choices andavoidance of similarity are considered as positive facets of CNFU devoid of social sanctions.

IMR25,1

46


15/21

These findings can be attributed to the traditional nature of the Palestinian society.Specifically, Hofstede (2001) reported that people from Arab countries (used as proxyfor Palestinians here) are more collectivistic than Israelis. Hence, social safe behaviorsshould be more important to them than to Israelis. Additionally, Arabs are much more

accepting of power distance (PD) than Israelis (Hofstede, 2001). Hence, they should bemore reluctant to exhibit risky social behaviors in the presence of higher-authorityindividuals than Israelis.

Methodological contributionsThe CNFU-S scale developed here has several advantages. First, the reducedquestionnaire length resulting from its use should allow researchers to use a moreelaborate set of scales for other constructs with minimal respondents fatigue risk thanpossible with the original scale. Second, the reduced form is easier to disguise insurveys by embedding it among other measures, thus decreasing potential demandeffects and hypothesis guessing.

Establishing the cross-country reliability and validity of the CNFU-S scale is a thirdmethodological contribution. In order for consumer behavior theories and theirassociated constructs to be used across countries and carry the same meaning,cross-cultural equivalence must be achieved. Lacking such evidence can lead to weak,ambiguous, or erroneous conclusions (Horn and McArdle, 1992; Myers et al., 2000;Sharma and Weathers, 2003; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; van Herk et al., 2005).

Beyond its advantages discussed above, the validated CNFU-S scale shouldfacilitate consistency in operationalization and development of cumulative research.Using the CNFU-S scale should encourage future research on the relationships betweenCNFU and new related constructs (e.g. opinion leadership and market mavenship),resulting in broader investigations. In sum, scholars could use CNFU-S withconfidence in future research.

Practical contributionsThe findings have several practical implications. First, a short scale, such as developedhere, should be simpler and easier to use for companies. It will make it easier forcompanies to embed the shorter scale in market studies and enable them to includeadditional constructs in the freed questionnaire space.

Second, while the construct of CNFU and its dimensions, as measured by the CNFU-S,are invariant across cultures, individuals from some cultures may still have higherCNFU levels than individuals from other cultures. Marketers can identify cultures withhigh or low CNFU and use standardized marketing campaigns to reach them as groupsof nations. Alternatively, international marketers could segment by CNFU and usecross-country segmentation and positioning based on within- and cross-country

similarities. Naturally, such campaigns have to be designed cleverly becausehigh-CNFU consumers might avoid buying such advertised products preciselybecause they are mass-advertised for fear of becoming similar to others if they buy theseproducts. Accordingly, such campaigns should stress that the products will only be usedby discerning individuals striving for unique expression of their individuality.

Finally, since the relationships between the antecedents and CNFU mostlygeneralized across cultures, marketers of unique products can use these antecedents todevelop and encourage CNFU with added confidence. Specifically, given the positive


47


16/21

impacts of public self consciousness and susceptibility to interpersonal influence onCNFU, marketers could, for example, depict the exhibition and use of unique productsand services in socially accepted situations (e.g. a group admiring an individual using aunique product). Such advertising campaigns should enhance CNFU and, through it,

its behavioral manifestations.

LimitationsOne potential limitation of this study concerns the possibility of the CNFU-S scale to benarrower in scope than the original. However, the impact of this limitation should beminimal because the nomological validity of the reduced and full CNFU scales did notdiffer. Additionally, the data validated the within- and cross-culture properties of theCNFU-S version using rigorous methodological approaches.

Another potential limitation concerns the samples. The survey targetedconvenience samples of consumers in the three countries. Since, minor demographicdifferences were identified between the samples and populations, more rigorous

sampling should be used in future studies.Additionally, the single-scale SEM resulted in a few cases of higher than desirableRMSEA levels, an issue discussed earlier. Notably, SEM is usually used to evaluatemodels with at least two unobservable constructs and at least three indicators for each.This is not the case for uni-construct models such as the one used here. Furthermore,all other fit indexes were excellent in these models. Moreover, the purpose of this phasewas to assess uni-dimensionality and convergent validity, which were demonstratedby high loadings, other fit statistics, and high levels of explained variance. However,future research should identify the reasons for the RMSEA values in some countries.

Finally, the shopping innovativeness scale had slightly lower reliability levels thantraditionally expected. These levels suggest that additional research is needed todevelop improved scales with cross-cultural samples.

Future challengesThis study raises several future research challenges. First, the manifestations ofuniqueness in different cultures could be further explored as research in this area issurprisingly scant. Societys impact on expressions of uniqueness is intriguing andworthy of future research. While this study established the cross-cultural validity ofthe nomological model in three countries, a question arises about the findingsgeneralizability to other cultures. The discussion here is based on Hofstedes (2001)cultural dimensions with Slovenias scores based on Zagorsek et al. (2004) andPalestines on the original scores for Arab Countries as a proxy. The three relevantdimensions are PD, uncertainty avoidance (UA), and IND.

The Palestine and Slovenia have similar high-PD scores (80 and 71, respectively)

and Israel has a low one (13). Since, CNFU manifestations might include unique statussymbols, they should be more acceptable in the two high-PD countries than in Israel.However, further research is needed in medium-PD countries. Since, the three countrieshave relatively high-UA scores (Israel 81, Slovenia 88, and the Palestinianauthority 68), consumers in them should exhibit similar uncertainty avoidingbehaviors. Notably, using products to display uniqueness entails some risk of socialreactions. Hence, further research is needed in low-UA countries. Finally, high-INDcountries should be tolerant of individual exhibition of uniqueness and Western

IMR25,1

48


17/21

cultures (but not collectivist ones) embrace and value unique and individualisticappearance (Kim and Markus, 1999). The countries studied here have low-medium INDscores (Israel 54, Slovenia 27, and the Palestinian Authority 38). Thus, furtherresearch is needed in high-IND countries.

Future research should widen the nomological network of CNFU. For example,future CNFU examinations should extend the range of outcomes beyond mostlymaterial products to include additional manifestations of the extended self, such asunique places (in the context of tourism) and risky sports (in the context of leisure).

Another avenue for future research concerns dimensional combinations. Forexample, do varying combinations of levels (low/high) on the three CNFU dimensionslead to different consumption behaviors? Additionally, would a high level on onedimension compensate for a low level on another? These are empirical questions bestanswered by future research.

Note

1. The establishment of validity also requires a determination of content and substantivevalidity, issues covered in the original CNFU paper (Tian et al., 2001).

References

Anderson, J.C. and Garbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review andrecommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W. and Hunter, J.E. (1987), On the assessment of unidimensionalmeasurement: internal and external consistency criteria, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 432-7.

Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), Hedonic shopping motivations, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 79, pp. 77-95.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1980), Causal Methods in Marketing, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Bagozzi, R.P. and Heatherton, T.F. (1994), A general approach to representing multifaceted

personality constructs: application to state self-esteem, Structural Equation Modeling,Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-67.

Bagozzi, R.P., Phillips, Y.Y. and Lynn, W. (1991), Assessing construct validity in organizationalresearch, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-58.

Bearden, W.O. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1999),Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item Measuresfor Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,.

Bearden, W.O. and Rose, R.L. (1990), Attention to social comparison information: an individualdifference factor affecting consumer conformity, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16,pp. 461-71.

Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), Measurement of consumer susceptibility

to interpersonal influence, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 473-81.

Belk, R.W. (1988), Possessions and the extended self, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15No. 2, pp. 139-68.

Bertrandias, L. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2006), Some psychological motivations for fashion opinionleadership and fashion opinion seeking, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management,Vol. 10, pp. 25-40.

Bollen, K.A. (1989),Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley-Interscience Publications,New York, NY.


49


18/21

Boyle, G.J. (1991), Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy inpsychometric scales?, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 291-4.

Brewer, M.B. (1991), The social self: on being the same and different at the same time,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17, pp. 475-82.

Browne, M.W. and Cudek, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in Bollen, K.A.and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 136-62.

Burns, D.J. and Brady, J. (1992), A cross-cultural comparison of the need for uniqueness inMalaysia and the United States, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 132 No. 2,pp. 487-95.

Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ.

Clark, R.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2005), Market mavens: psychological influences, Psychology &Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 289-312.

deVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications Applied Social Research

Methods, Series 26, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Doll, W.J., Raghunathan, T.S., Lim, J-S. and Gupta, Y.P. (1995), A confirmatory factor analysis of

the user information satisfaction instrument,Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 177-88.

Donavan, D.T., Brown, T.J. and Mowen, J.C. (2004), Internal benefits of service-worker customerorientation: job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 128-46.

Douglas, S.P. and Craig, S.C. (1993),International Marketing Research, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Douglas, S.P., Craig, S.C. and Nijssen, E.J. (2003), On the use of borrowed scales incross-national research: a cautionary note, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 20No. 6, pp. 621-43.

Drolet, A.L. and Morrison, D.G. (2001), Do we really need multiple-item measures in serviceresearch?, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 196-205.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Fromkin, H.L. (1970), The effect of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness uponvaluation of scarce and novel experiences, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 521-9.

Fromkin, H.L. (1972), Feelings of interpersonal undistinctiveness: an unpleasant affective state,Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, Vol. 6, pp. 178-82.

Garver, M.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999), Logistics research methods: employing structuralequation modeling to test for construct validity, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20

No. 1, pp. 33-57.Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), An updated paradigm for scale development

incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-92.

Goldsmith, R.E., Clark, R.A. and Goldsmith, E.B. (2006), Extending the psychological profile ofmarket mavenism, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 411-20.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

IMR25,1

50


19/21

Harris, J. and Lynn, M. (1996), Manifestations of the desire for unique consumer products,

paper presented at the American Marketing Associations Winter Educators Conference,Hilton Head, SC.

Heckert, D.M. (1989), The relativity of positive deviance: the case of the French impressionists,

Deviant Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 131-44.Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Horn, J.L. and McArdle, J. (1992), A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance inaging research, Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 117-44.

Institute for Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (2006), available at: www.sigov.si/zmar/

Kim, H.S. and Drolet, A. (2003), Choice and self-expression: a cultural analysis of varietyseeking, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 373-82.

Kim, H.S. and Markus, H.R. (1999), Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A culturalanalysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 785-800.

Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R. and Pathak, S. (2006), The reification of absorptive capacity: a criticalreview and rejuvenation of the construct,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4,

pp. 833-63.

Ling, I-L. (2005), An attribution model of the consumers conformity behaviour, paperpresented at the International Conference on Business and Information, Hong Kong,July 14-15, 2005.

Lynn, M. and Harris, J. (1997a), Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness throughconsumption, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 21, pp. 1861-83.

Lynn, M. and Harris, J. (1997b), The desire for unique consumer products: a new individualdifferences scale, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 601-16.

McGuire, W.J. (1976), Some internal psychological factors influencing consumer choice,Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 302-19.

Mullen, M.R. (1995), Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross national research,Journal

of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 573-96.Myers, M.B., Calantone, R.R., Page, T.G. and Taylor, C.R. (2000), Academic insight:

an application of multiple-group causal models in assessing cross-cultural measurementequivalence, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 108-21.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978),Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2006), available at: www.pcbs.gov.ps/

Ping, R.A. (2004), On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using survey data,Journalof Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 125-41.

Raju, P.S. (1980), Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics, andexploratory behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 272-82.

Richins, M.L. (2004), The material values scale: a re-inquiry into its measurement properties and

the development of a short form,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 209-19.Ruvio, A. (2008), Unique like everybody else? The social context of consumers need for

uniqueness, Psychology and Marketing, forthcoming.

Segars, A.H. and Grover, V. (1998), Strategic information systems planning success:an investigation of the construct and its measurement, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 139-63.

Segars, A.H. and Grover, V. (1999), Profiles of strategic information systems planning,Information Systems Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 199-232.


51


20/21

Sharma, S. and Weathers, D. (2003), Assessing generalizability of scales used in cross-nationalresearch, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 287-95.

Smith, P.C. and Stanton, J.M. (1998), Perspectives on the measurement of job attitudes: the longview, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 367-86.

Snyder, C.R. (1992), Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: a consumer catch-22carousel?, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 9-24.

Snyder, C.R. and Fromkin, H.L. (1977), Abnormality as a positive characteristic: the developmentand validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness,Journal of Abnormal Psychology,Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 518-27.

Snyder, C.R. and Fromkin, H.L. (1980), Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference, Plenum,New York, NY.

Stanton, J.M., Sinar, E.F., Balzer, W.K. and Smith, P.C. (2002), Issues and strategies for reducingthe length of self-report scales, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 167-93.

Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2006), available at: www.stat.si./eng/index.asp

Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1995), Development of cross-national validation of a

short form of CSI as a measure optimum stimulation level, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 97-104.

Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), Assessing measurement invariance incross-national consumer research,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-93.

Tepper, K. (1997), Categories, contexts, and conflicts of consumers nonconformity experiences,in Belk, R.W. (Ed.),Research in Consumer Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 209-45.

Thompson, C.J. and Haytko, D.L. (1997), Speaking of fashion: consumers uses of fashiondiscourses and the appropriation of countervailing cultural meanings, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 15-42.

Tian, K.T. and Mckenzie, K. (2001), The long-term predictive validity of consumers need foruniqueness, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1971-3.

Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O. and Hunter, G.L. (2001), Consumers need for uniqueness: scale

development and validation, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 50-66.

van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y.H. and Verhallen, M.M. (2005), Equivalence of survey data: relevancefor international marketing,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 3/4, pp. 251-364.

Zagorsek, H., Jaklic, M. and Stough, S.J. (2004), Comparing leadership practices between theUnited States, Nigeria, and Slovenia: does culture matter?, Cross Cultural Management,Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 16-34.

AppendixCNFU SCreative choice

1. I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot beduplicated.

2. I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I enjoybeing original.

3. I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness by buying special products or brands.4. Having an eye for products that are interesting and unusual assists me in establishing a

distinctive image.

Unpopular choice5. When it comes to the products I buy and the situations in which I use them, I have broken

customs and rules.

IMR25,1

52


21/21

6. I have often violated the understood rules of my social group regarding what to buy or own.7. I have often gone against the understood rules of my social group regarding when and how

certain products are properly used.8. I enjoy challenging the prevailing taste of people I know by buying something they would

not seem to accept.Avoidance of similarity

9. When a product I own becomes popular among the general population, I begin to use it less.10. I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population.11. As a rule, I dislike products or brands that are customarily bought by everyone.12. The more commonplace a product or brand is among the general population, the less

interested I am in buying it.

Unique consumption behavior1. I have decorative walls in my house like brick stones, plaster walls, etc.2. I have a wet bar in my kitchen.3. I have a tattoo on my body.4. I own a pure-bred cat, or dog, or horse.5. I own a unique collection (knifes, stamps, coins, etc)

Corresponding authorAyalla Ruvio can be contacted at: [email protected]


53

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

consumers' need

Documents