innovativesness, novelty seeking

8/9/2019 Innovativesness, Novelty Seeking

1/14

Journal of Consumer Research Inc.

Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer CreativityAuthor(s): Elizabeth C. HirschmanSource: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Dec., 1980), pp. 283-295Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489013 .Accessed: 07/06/2014 08:58

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

.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2489013?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/2489013?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/14

Innovativeness ovelty Seeking n d

onsumer reativity

ELIZABETH . HIRSCHMAN*

A conceptual framework is presented that incorporates three constructshighly relevant to consumer behavior-innovativeness, novelty seeking, andconsumer creativity. A fourth construct, role accumulation, is also discussed.A model of the relational linkages among these constructs is developed, to-gether with their definitions and a methodology to develop operational meas-ures. Research implications and applications of this conceptual frameworkare discussed.

Aconceptual framework s presented of the inter-relationships among three constructs relevant to

the behavior of consumers-innovativeness, noveltyseeking, and creativity. These concepts are organizedinto a theoretical framework that integrates existingparadigms, consolidates previously independent con-structs, and generates hypotheses for research.

The first of these behavioral constructs, innovative-ness, has been the subject of lengthy and extensiveinvestigations in several areas of behavioral science(Midgley 1976; 1977; Midgley and Dowling 1978; Rob-ertson 1971; Rogers and Shoemaker 1971), and hasreceived great attention by consumer researchers. Byway of contrast, novelty-seeking behavior has beeninvestigated to some extent within the innovation-dif-fusion context (see Rogers and Shoemaker 1971for asummary of this research), yet has received relativelygreater attention by psychologists and other behavioralscientists not directly involved with consumer behav-ior (Faison 1977). Creativity has been primarily n ob-ject of study by trait psychologists, who have concen-trated their efforts on investigating creativity in itsmost extreme manifestations as characterized by out-standing artistic or scientific achievement (Barron1968; MacKinnon 1961; 1962; 1965; Welsh 1975). In-vestigations of creativity have not focused on its po-tential applicability o everyday consumption ctivities.

First, a brief overview is given of each constructdrawn from the literature. Next, a series of proposi-tions and supportive discussion are presented, whichintegrate these three constructs into an overall con-ceptual framework. To accomplish this, some newnotions dealing with cognitive processes are intro-duced, explanations are suggested for known phenom-ena, and three potential components of innovativenessare advanced.

INNOVATIVENESSFew concepts in the behavioral sciences have as

much immediate relevance to consumer behavior asinnovativeness. The propensities of consumers toadopt novel products, whether they are ideas, goods,or services, can play an important role in theories ofbrand oyalty, decision making, preference, and com-munication. If there were no such characteristic as in-novativeness, consumer behavior would consist of aseries of routinized buying responses to a static set ofproducts. It is the inherent willingness of a consumingpopulation to innovate that gives the marketplace tsdynamic nature. On an individual basis, every con-sumer is, to some extent, an innovator; all of us overthe course of our lives adopt some objects or ideas thatare new in our perception.

Innovativeness has undergone two major concep-tualizations. The first is captured n the statement byRogers and Shoemaker (1971, p. 27) that innovative-ness is the degree to which an individual s relativelyearlier in adopting an innovation than other membersof his social system. However, as Midgley and Dowl-ing (1978, p. 230) observe, This is essentially an op-erational definition since it is couched directly n termsof measurement of innovativeness. viz., the time taken

* Elizabeth C. Hirschman s Associate Director, nstitute of RetailManagement, and Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing,New York University, NY 10003.The author wishes to acknowledgethe many constructive comments provided by the reviewers on ear-lier drafts of this manuscript. Gratitude s expressed to MelanieWallendorf or the introduction f the concept of role accumulation,and to Gerald Zaltman or his mentorship.

283?DJOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH 0 Vol. 7 0 December 1980

This content downloaded from 21 7.75.218.194 on Sat, 7 Jun 201 4 08:58:43 AMAll 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


3/14

284 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

for an individual o adopt. It is also hindered, as thoseauthors point out, by potential measurement error indetermining when an innovation was introduced ntothe social system.

A conceptual strength of the Rogers and Shoemaker

(1971) definition, however, is its dependence on thenotion that an innovation s an idea, practice, or ob-ject perceived as new by the individual, (p. 19). Al-though here may be large variations n the perceptionsof product newness among consumers, which con-found measuring their roles as innovators, it will beargued that this diversity of perceived novelty isclosely tied to the cognitive origins of innovativeness.

The second major conceptualization of innovative-ness was constructed in a recent article by Midgleyand Dowling (1978) who, after an extensive literaturereview, expressed the notion that innovativeness was

the degree to which an individual s receptive to newideas and makes innovation decisions independently

of the communicated experience of others (p. 236).These writers viewed innovativeness as a personalityconstruct possessed to a greater or lesser degree byall individuals. It is believed to be a continuous vari-able normally distributed within a population of con-sumers and generalizable across products. Midgleyand Dowling put forward no explanations of the causesgenerating nnovativeness, nor did they discuss whysome individuals exhibited more innovativeness thanothers.

Causes of InnovativenessAlthough nnovativeness has generated a vast amount

of empirical research, its origins and causes remainobscure. Despite the search for demographic and so-ciopsychological correlates for this construct, few at-tempts have been made to chart the development ofinnovativeness within an individual over time.

One explanation or the lack of causal investigationis that innovativeness may have been assumed con-stant for each individual; hat each consumer s bornwith a certain allotment of innovativeness and thispersonality trait remains invariant over his/her lifecourse. However, given the fact that innovativenesshas been found highly correlated with such variablesas educational attainment, occupational status, andurbanization Rogers and Shoemaker 1971), it wouldseem more plausible that it is not a genetic constant,but rather socially influenced.

NOVELTY SEEKINGThe basic notion underlying he construct of novelty

seeking appears to be that through some internal driveor motivating orce the individual s activated to seekout novel information Acker and McReynolds 1967;Cattell 1975; Farley and Farley 1967). There appear

to be at least two aspects to novelty seeking that arelikely to be correlated.

The first aspect is seeking new and potentially dis-crepant information. This is the aspect most empha-sized in studies by psychologists, such as Fiske and

Maddi 1961), McClelland 1955),and by Rogers (1962)in his notion of venturesomeness. The second aspectis the extent to which individuals vary their choicesamong known stimuli, for example, by alternating heirpurchase of previously sampled brands. This aspectof novelty seeking is perhaps better described as va-riety seeking or stimulus variation. The stimuli arealready known, and thus rotating heir use may serveto reduce boredom or fatigue, but does not lead to theacquisition of new information. In the discussion tofollow, the first aspect will be given greater emphasis.

It is useful to divide novelty seeking into two com-ponents-inherent novelty seeking and actualizednovelty seeking. Inherent novelty seeking is viewed

as the desire of the individual o seek out novel stimuli;actualized novelty seeking represents the actual be-havior by the individual o acquire novel stimuli.

Potential Sources of Novelty SeekingFlavell (1977) notes that at a very early age human

infants already are engaged in novelty seeking. Whenpresented with two visual stimuli of equal intensity,one familiar and one novel, the infant will select thenovel stimulus. Thus, novelty seeking would seem torepresent an innate search for information. However,even if novelty seeking is innate, it is logical to assumethat it serves some constructive purpose to the

individual.One straightforward explanation is that noveltyseeking serves as a means of self-preservation. Theindividual may find it useful to create a bank ofpotentially useful knowledge. Because the future isunknowable and unexpected, consumption problemsare almost inevitable; he consumer may wisely decideto seek information hat is not useful now, but mayassume great importance n the future. It stands to rea-son that the consumer who has sought and stored moredata is likely to be better equipped for novel problemcircumstances. The data that are stored may include(1) vicarious adoption of unfamiliar product con-cepts, (2) the vicarious experiencing of unfamiliar

consumption situations, (3) the actual adoption ofnovel products, (4) and personal exposure to novelconsumption situations.

A second, complementary, explanation for noveltyseeking is that it functions to improve problem-solvingskills. That is, the consumer may seek informationpertaining to presently adopted products and con-sumption situations n an effort to improve his/her per-formance. This rationale or novelty seeking could alsolead the consumer to both seek information about andto the actual adoption of new products.



4/14

INNOVATIVENESS, OVELTY EEKING, AND CREATIVITY 285

As an example, magazine readership s likely to bedue, at least in part, to novelty-seeking behavior. Onefeature hat makes magazines valuable o the consumeris that every issue contains novel information. In agenuine sense, a magazine subscription represents acommitment by the consumer to acquire novel data.An information-rich medium, stich as a magazine, al-lows the individual to absorb the accumulated expe-riences of others in a readily accessible and low-riskform. The consumer assumes that each issue will bedifferent rom its predecessor-that s/he will be con-fronted with unfamiliar and possibly discrepantknowledge.

It may be reasoned that novelty seeking to fulfill thepurpose of providing potentially useful knowledge isexemplified by general interest magazines that digestand abstract information from multiple sources onmultiple topics, such as Time and Newsweek. Maga-zines that would be sought out for better solutions topresent problems are likely to be those of a specialinterest nature, such as Tennis World, Yachting, andVogue. Some magazines, of course, cover a sort ofmiddle ground and prove useful both in providing gen-eral knowledge and specialized knowledge; for ex-ample, Fortune contains both generalized and spe-cialized information.

RELATING INNOVATIVENESS ANDNOVELTY SEEKING

In their discussion of innovativeness, Midgley andDowling (1978) distinguished between generalized or

inherent innovativeness and actualized innovative-ness. The notion of actualized innovativeness is con-sistent with innovativeness as conceptualized by Rog-ers and Shoemaker 1971), in that it deals with productadoption (measurable behavior) rather than willing-ness to adopt (predispositions o act in a certain way).

Reexamination of these definitions reveals that theyare closely related to the constructs of inherent andactualized novelty seeking. The desire to seek out thenew and different (i.e., inherent novelty seeking) isconceptually ndistinguishable rom the willingness toadopt new products (i.e., inherent innovativeness).Especially when one defines products in their broadsense, it becomes apparent that new products may

constitute new information n the form of ideas (e.g.,from magazines), services (e.g., education courses),and tangible goods (e.g., apparel, automobiles). Thus,a consumer who expresses a willingness to adopt anew product s necessarily also expressing a desire fornovel information.

However, actualized novelty seeking and actualizedinnovativeness are not the same phenomenon. Ac-tualized novelty seeking refers to the initiation of be-haviors intended to acquire new information; whereasactualized innovativeness refers to the actual acqui-

sition of new information. Thus, actualized noveltyseeking may be represented by purchasing a ticket toa movie or buying a newspaper. The individual s un-dertaking his action in an attempt to obtain novel in-formation; however, upon viewing the movie or read-ing the newspaper, s/he may discover that no newinformation was forthcoming. Thus, although the at-tempt was made (actualized novelty seeking), the de-sired objective was not achieved (actualizedinnovativeness).

ADOPTIVE AND VICARIOUSINNOVATIVENESS

To develop this idea further, let us make a subtledistinction between two components of actualized in-novativeness. The component termed adoptive inno-vativeness refers to the actual adoption of a new prod-uct, and the component termed vicarious innovativenessrefers to the acquisition of information egarding newproduct. Through vicarious innovativeness the indi-vidual can, in essence, adopt the product concept with-out adopting the product itself. S/he can enter novelinformation nto memory and have it available or con-sumption decision making, but avoid the expense andrisk inherent in adopting the actual product. Furthers/he can similarly enlarge his/her knowledge of con-sumption situations hrough he vicarious experiencingof novel consumption situations. For example, s/hemay read about how to fix a flat tire or how to copewith being bumped from an airplane, rather thanacquiring his knowledge by personal experience.

Thus inherent novelty seeking can be used in placeof inherent nnovativeness and is posited to lead to twoforms of actualized innovativeness: adoptive innova-tiveness and vicarious innovativeness. Both vicariousand adoptive innovativeness may result from the suc-cessful implementation of actualized novelty seeking,as illustrated n Figure A.

CREATIVITYThe construct of creativity has been an especially

intriguing one to psychologists since the beginning ofthis century; it inspired a particularly voluminousamount of empirical nvestigation and theoretical con-

jecture during he 1950sand 1960s(Barron 1968; 1969;MacKinnon 1961; Taylor 1959).The conceptual perspective of creativity used here

is that of the ability to engage in what Guilford 1965)terms productive thinking-the capacity to generatenovel cognitive content. Creativity is required forproblem solving; as Guilford states: Problem solvingis creative (p. 8). To solve a problem, the consumermust create some novel cognitive content. The extentof creativity will depend on both the nature of the prob-lem confronted and the capability of the individual.



5/14


FIGURE A

NOVELTY SEEKING AND ACTUALIZED INNOVATIVENESS

Actualizedinnovativeness:

Vicariousinnovativeness

Accumulate Inherent Actualized (acquisition of in-potentially formation about newuseful knowledge nvlyseigoetyekngproducts/consumption

situations)

Improve present Adoptiveproblem-solving innovativenessskills (acquisition of new

products)

Creativity has generally been examined in its mostextreme forms, where the criterion of ideationaluniqueness has sometimes dominated considerationsof problem-solving utility. This is especially evidentin studies relating creativity to schizophrenia and so-cial maladjustment Arieti 1976, pp. 354-9). Despitethe popular impression that genius is related to mad-ness, quite the opposite finding has emerged from thegreat bulk of research. Highly creative people are notmentally unstable, but rather tend to display amplesocial adjustment, empathy, sensitivity, rationality,and open-mindedness Arieti 1976; Welsh 1975). Fur-ther, and more directly pertinent to consumer behav-ior, highly creative people have been found to be ex-

cellent problem solvers (Welsh 1975).In fact, expertiseat problem solving, both of a specific and generalizednature, is one of the central operational measures ofcreativity (Barron 1969; Wallach and Kogan 1965).

In measuring creativity, researchers typically asksubjects to generate alternate uses of objects (eithernovel or familiar), o discern similarities between pairsof concepts, to cite concepts possessing a given at-tribute, or to solve puzzles and problems either of areal or fantasy nature Wallach and Kogan 1965;Welsh1975).Logically, it would seem that the problem-solv-ing capabilities possessed by creative people might bequite useful in consumption-related ctivities, as well.For example, a highly creative person should be better

able to mentally generate several substitute productsif the usual choice is unavailable or to imagine how toquickly solve an unexpected, urgent consumptionproblem with products on hand, such as using diapersas bandages in an accident.

Consumer CreativityConsumer creativity may be defined as the problem-

solving capability possessed by the individual hat maybe applied toward solving consumption-related prob-

lems (Hirschman 1980).In line with this reasoning, hiscomponent of creativity could be an important actorin the individual's ability to deal effectively with theconsumption environment.

Creativity, in general, and consumer creativity, asa component, are believed to result from the processof hierarchical ognitive development initially put for-ward by Piaget (1972) and extended by Dasen (1972),Feldman, Lee, McLean, Pillemer and Murray 1974),and Flavell (1977), among others. This theory positsthat the individual acquires concepts and the abilityto reason logically and symbolically through exposureto various sources of environmental timulation. Iden-tified sources of environmental timulation n Western

societies include formal education, childhood experi-ences, occupational demands, urbanization, role ac-cumulation, and the like (Hirschman 1980;Wallendorf1979). Each of these environmental actors possessesthe ability to stimulate he individual o learn concepts,to categorize knowledge, and to form theories abouthow the world functions.

The effects of cognitive development on creativityare directly linked to consumer behavior in that con-sumers must learn to comprehend' two key sets ofconcepts: products and consumption situations. Thisis especially true of consumers in modern societies.The more modern the society, the more the individ-ual's role as a consumer grows in complexity; thus,

more creativity will be required for successful per-formance as a consumer.The creativity of consumers s posited to result from

two related cognitive sources: (1) the density of theproduct-relevant nterconcept network possessed bythe individual and (2) the repertoire of consumptionsituations that s/he has mentally retained (Hirschman1979).

' Comprehension n this sense connotes the notion of verstehen,that is, to understand nd be capable of interpreting.



6/14


Interconcept NetworksThroughout ife, the consumer acquires knowledge

about products and their attributes. This informationis retained mentally as categories of product conceptswith associated attributes. Concurrent with the ac-quisition of product concepts is the establishment ofa network of interconcept inkages (Scott, Osgood, andPeterson 1979; Simon 1979) that consists of dimen-sions relating one product concept to another accord-ing to the correlative pattern of their attributes. Thesedimensions reflect the similarity or dissimilarity of in-terconcept characteristics.

It stands to reason that the more diversified he con-sumption experiences an individual has had, the moreproduct concepts s/he will have acquired, and the moreattributes /he will have associated with each concept,either rom vicarious or actual experience. Thus, moreexperienced consumers will have a more highly de-veloped interconcept network than the less experi-enced. Interconcept network density represents thenumber of dimensions the consumer has available forcomparing alternative product concepts. It is one im-portant cognitive source of consumer creativity, be-cause the more dimensions one has available or com-paring alternatives, the closer congruence can beattained between problem criteria and the attributesof potential solutions.

ScriptsA second component of consumer creativity springs

from the same factors as the first, but may be repre-sented differently in the individual's mind; this com-ponent is termed a script or episodic schema (Norman1976; Schrank and Abelson 1977; Simon 1979). Theseare described by Simon (1979, p. 377) as follows: Thenodes (mental storage areas) of episodic schema rep-resent a system of temporally and causally relatedevents . . . (for example) the schema associated with'restaurant' could be a script describing the typicalsequence of events that occurs when one enters a res-taurant. In essence, then, these scripts or episodicschema may represent a repertoire of consumptionsituations that the consumer has stored and may ma-nipulate mentally.

The importance of scripts to consumer creativityderives from the fact that the individual may use themto mentally recall how s/he solved prior consumptionproblems (e.g., solution criteria, decision strategies),and may apply this knowledge to solve similar prob-lems. Further, the individual may mentally rearrangeparts of various scripts into new configurations o rep-resent a novel consumption situation s/he is facing orexpects to encounter. Therefore, the notion of scriptsmay provide a deeper and expanded theoretical rame-work for the construct of situation (Belk 1975; Millerand Ginter 1979).

Scripts, like concepts, are acquired through expo-sure to environmental stimulation. As with productconcepts, the more diversified the consumption ex-periences of the consumer, the larger and more variedwill become the mental repertoire of consumption

situations.One important distinction between interconcept net-works and scripts s that the former are static and prop-ositional in nature, whereas the latter are dynamic andexperiential. In other words, interconcept networksdeal with the facts the consumer has acquired abouta product concept. For example, s/he may knowthat a Honda Civic has a 40 mpg energy rating or thata Holiday Inn room costs $50 per night. Such knowl-edge does not have to be acquired through actual ex-perience with the product. It can be obtained, for ex-ample, from advertising, friends, a product ratingservice, and so forth.

In contrast, the repertoire of consumption situations

that the individual has stored in memory representsthe scripts resulting from various consumption expe-riences. Whereas, they may contain some factual in-formation (e.g., I remember I paid $50 per night atthe Holiday Inn in Atlanta, Georgia ), they are mostuseful because they allow the individual to recall thetemporal and spatial series of actions related to a givenact of consumption.

For example, scripts may permit the individual toreconstruct the physical movements necessary tosolve a consumption problem, alert him/her o certainverbal or visual cues that may be important e.g., Thelast time I was in a restaurant ike this, and the waitersaid that, then . . . ), and develop a set of strategic

actions. Further, n planning a solution to a consump-tion problem that will require a complex set of time-and space-sequenced actions, the combination f scriptsinto novel scenarios may aid in the planning process.For example, in planning a trip to a foreign country,the consumer may combine scripts from a variety ofprior experiences (e.g., airplane rips, train rides, for-eign language courses, checking in and out of hotels,eating unusual cuisine) to imagine the trip and pickthe most desirable elements from a set of alternatives.

Source of CreativityBy combining interconcept networks and scripts,

the individual s provided with the essential elementsfor consumer creativity. That is, to solve a consump-tion problem one must mentally represent the situa-tional context (either actual or hypothetical) and iso-late the criteria that are required to satisfactorily

solve the problem. This may be accomplished bycalling up a stored script or by combining portions ofseveral scripts to mentally recreate the problem en-vironment. Once the necessary solution criteria havebeen identified, the individual may search along var-



7/14


ious interconcept network linkages for product con-cepts that possess the set of attributes appropriate orsolving the problem.

Thus, consumer creativity is believed to be a func-tion of the density of the consumer's interconcept net-work and his/her mental repertoire of consumptionsituations. Together they provide the two essentialcomponents of problem solving: (1) the ability to men-tally represent the problem context, isolate solutioncriteria, and identify decision strategies, and (2) theability to evoke potential product solutions that pos-sess the required attributes.

CONSUMER CREATIVITY ANDACTUALIZED NNOVATIVENESS

Consumer creativity is related to actualized inno-vativeness in a way distinct from that of novelty seek-ing. To discuss this relationship, a series of deductivepropositions s put forward, and a third component ofactualized innovativeness is specified-use innova-tiveness. The basic idea underlying use innovativenessis that the consumer acts in an innovative ashion whens/he uses a previously adopted product o solve a novelconsumption problem. In other words, when the con-sumer uses a product that s/he already possesses tosolve a problem that has not been previously encoun-tered, s/he is displaying use innovativeness. Beforedeveloping these notions, however, a brief review ofresearch relating to consumer perceptions of productinnovations is pertinent.

Perceptions of InnovationsThe variance that has been observed in the adoption

and diffusion of new products may be due in part toconsumers' perceptions of these products. Variousclassification schemes involving product attributeshave been proposed to account for the observed dif-ferences in diffusion rates. However, the Rogers andShoemakers (1971) typology, adopted by most con-sumer researchers, proposes five characteristics oundto have general relevance:2

* Relative advantage: the degree to which an inno-vation is perceived superior o the one it will replaceor compete against positively related o adoptablility).

* Compatibility: the extent to which the new productis consistent with existing values and the past expe-rience of the adopter positively elated o adoptability).

* Complexity: the degree to which the innovation isdifficult to understand or to use (negatively relatedto adoptability).

* Trialability or divisibility): the degree o which aninnovationmay be tried by consumers n a limitedbasis (positively elated o adoptability).

* Observability (or communicability): the extent towhich an innovation s visible to others (positivelyrelated o adoptability).

Exploring the relative efficacy of product-relatedand adopter-related variables in predicting actualizedinnovativeness, Ostlund (1974) was able to correctlyclassify innovators 79 percent of the time using onlythe five product perceptual variables. This value in-creased only to 80 percent when 13 personal charac-teristic variables were included.3 In a second study(Ostlund 1974), the perceived product attributes cor-rectly classified 77 percent of the eventual innovators;whereas a rate of 79 percent was obtained by includingpersonal characteristic variables in the discriminantfunction.4 Taylor (1977), following Ostlund, found a

significant, positive relationship between usage of aproduct class and time of adoption. This suggests thatprior knowledge of the product class may lead togreater ability to detect superior new products in thatclass and, hence, contribute o the probability hat theywill be adopted.

Combining his empirical evidence with the factorsbelieved to underlie consumer creativity leads to thefollowing propositions:

P1: The probability hat a novel product' will beadopted is inversely related to the amount ofcognitive effort that must be expended by aconsumer to comprehend t as a concept.6

P2: Comprehension f the novel product as a con-cept will, generally, precede actual adoptionof the product.7

P3: The fewer attributes the novel product pos-sesses in common with presently concep-tualized products, the more cognitive effortmust be expended to comprehend it as aconcept.

P4: By definition, the more creative the con-sumer, the more product concepts have beencomprehended either vicariously or throughactual adoption). Thus, the greater the like-lihood that the creative consumer will be able

2 For confirmation of the direction of these relationships withadoptability n empirical studies, see Schiffman and Kanuk (1978),pp. 405-7.

3 The figures are for unaided recall; they were lower for aidedrecall.

4 Of the personal characteristic ariables, only venturesomenessand socioeconomic status were found to have any significant tatis-tical relationship positive) to innovativeness.

5 A novel product s one unfamiliar o the consumer; t is perceivedto be an innovation.' Comprehend means to understand how the product will be ableto function and to interpret ts potential utility.

7 Exceptions include receipt of the product as a gift, emergencypurchases, externally required doption e.g., to enter his contest,you must purchase his product ), and the like.



8/14


to detect common attributes between con-ceptually comprehended products and thenovel product.

P5: The more creative the consumer, the less cog-nitive effort must be expended to comprehendany novel product as a concept, ceterisparibus.

P6: From Proposition 5 it follows that the morecreative the consumer, the better equippeds/he is to evaluate the similarities and differ-ences among previously adopted productsand unfamiliar products.

P7: The enhanced ability the creative consumerpossesses to perceive analogies and differ-ences among new and familiar products, cou-pled with his/her greater ability to mentallymanipulate a consumption problem environ-

ment, increases the competence with whichalternative products are evaluated and theprobability of the superior product beingselected.

These propositions suggest that the highly creativeconsumer is better able to decide whether to adopt anovel product to solve an existing consumption prob-lem. If s/he compares the novel product o the productnow used and perceives that the innovation s superior,the new product will be adopted. Thus, high levels ofconsumer creativity do not necessarily lead to in-creased new product adoption, but rather o more com-petent new product evaluation. If the new product isjudged potentially superior o the presently used prod-uct, it is adopted (adoptive innovativeness). If it is notjudged potentially superior, it is not adopted, ceterisparibus.

Following this same line of reasoning, t is also prob-able that high levels of consumer creativity will leadto increased incidence of use innovativeness. Let usassume that the consumer is faced with a novel con-sumption problem, rather than a novel product. Tosolve this new problem the consumer can undertakeone of two courses of action. First, s/he can adopt anew product that is perceived to be better for solvingthe new problem. This, of course, is adoptive inno-vativeness. A second viable course of action is to usea

presently adopted productto solve the new con-

sumption problem. This is use innovativeness.The highly creative consumer will be more adept at

both types of actualized innovativeness. S/he shouldbe better able to construct an appropriate mental rep-resentation of the problem situation, and, by sortingthrough his/her extensive set of familiar product con-cepts (adopted either actually or vicariously), choosethe one that will best solve the problem. If the prod-uct concept decided on is one which has been previ-ously adopted, then it will be utilized, i.e., use inno-

vativeness. If the chosen product concept has beenadopted only in a vicarious sense, then actual adoptionwill ensue, i.e., adoptive innovativeness.

ROLE ACCUMULATIONAt this point, it is evident that a key factor influ-

encing both adoptive innovativeness and use innova-tiveness is the confrontation by the consumer of anovel consumption problem. Faced with new problemsto solve, it is evident that the consumer must undertakesome type of innovative activity. S/he must eitheradopt a new product (adoptive innovativeness) or usean old product in a new way (use innovativeness).A construct that would seem a valuable conceptuallinkage is role accumulation. As described and meas-ured by Wallendorf (1979), role accumulation refersto the number of nonoverlapping roles the individualis performing. It would appear ogical to assume that

when the individual adopts a new role whose respon-sibilities are not redundant with roles currently played,a new set of consumption problems will often be en-countered. This will be especially true if the role ishighly specialized, requiring perhaps special trainingor instruments or proper performance.

For example, a woman who is a wife and motherobtains ajob as a management rainee. To perform hernew role, she will likely undertake a variety of inno-vative actions. Some products presently owned can besuccessfully reapplied o new uses required by the newrole. For instance, the dress suit that was used onlyfor special occasions may now be worn to work. Otherproducts, for example, a briefcase, may be adopted or

the first time, although the woman is likely to alreadyhave vicarious knowledge of them. Once on the job,she may face a fresh set of completely unfamiliar rod-uct concepts or consumption situations that can beadopted vicariously or in actuality. Thus, acquiring anew role may generate all three types of innovative-ness-vicarious, adoptive, and use.

Causes of Role AccumulationAt least two types of agents may initiate role ac-

cumulation. First, there are a variety of life-cycle-re-lated factors that may provide external mpetus for theaccumulation of new roles. For example, as the indi-

vidual matures, certain roles are acquired due to so-cialization or social expectations. The individual s re-quired to attend primary and secondary schools for acertain number of years; after graduation /he often isexpected to attend college and/or to acquire a job forself-sufficiency. S/he also may experience social pres-sure to marry and produce children. With each of theseadditional, socially-induced roles, s/he confronts novelconsumption situations and must adopt new productsor use present ones in novel ways. Thus, one likelysource of role accumulation, and hence actualized in-



9/14


FIGURE B

MODEL OF ROLE ACCUMULATION AND INNOVATIVENESS

Socialization

influences Novel AdoptiveRole accumulation consumption problems innovativeness

Vicarious Consumer creativity: Useinnovativeness innovativeness

Novelty seeking Repertoire ofself-fulfillment consumption

situations

Interconceptnetwork density

novativeness, is external pressure through he processof socialization.

A second probable source of role accumulation sinternal inducement. Many roles acquired by an in-dividual may be due to one's desire for novel experi-ences, to seek self-fulfillment, or to express his/hertalents. Regardless of the source, however, role ac-cumulation precipitates actualized innovativeness, asoutlined in Figure B.

CONSTRUCT OPERATIONALIZATIONTo implement the theoretical framework suggested

here, a set of operational measures is necessary. Tothis end, some suggestions or possible empirical meas-ures are advanced for consumer creativity, role ac-cumulation, nherent novelty seeking, actualized nov-elty seeking, vicarious innovativeness, adoptiveinnovativeness, and use innovativeness.

Consumer CreativityBecause consumer creativity s posited to consist of

two components-interconcept network density andrepertoire of consumption situations-it is essential tomeasure each component as a separate entity, and thento combine them into an overall measure of creativity.

Interconcept Network Density. Interconcept net-work density refers to the number of linkages existingamong concepts based on the perceived intercorrela-tions of their respective attribute sets. The more con-cepts the individual has acquired and the more attri-butes s/he has associated with each concept, the moredense the interconcept network is likely to become.To obtain an empirical measure of interconcept net-work density, the following operational procedure issuggested.

First, provide the subject with a diversified list ofproducts representative of various domains of con-sumption, e.g., apparel, transportation, ood, enter-tainment. Products within each domain will be ar-ranged in a paired comparison format. Second, theindividual will be asked to list as many similar anddissimilar attributes as s/he can for each pair. The ra-tionale for measuring both similarity and dissimilaritydimensions across product pairs is that these representthe consumer's ability to generalize across and dis-criminate among product concepts. Third, computethe average number of similar and dissimilar product-pair linkages named by the respondent within each

domain, and sum across all domains. If one desires totap interconcept network density for only one domainof consumption, e.g., food products, the same methodmay be employed, but the product list would includeonly food items.

Situational Repertoire. Measuring situational rep-ertoire is more problematic, as less empirical researchand theoretical effort have been expended in this area.Until firmer oundation has been laid, a more narrowlyfocused strategy seems desirable. One approach wouldconsist of using focus groups of consumers with variedlevels of experience in a given consumption domainto generate typologies of problem situations. It is an-ticipated hat one of two general orms of typology willemerge from this process, which will dictate the op-erationalization of situational repertoire.

One form that the typology may take is that of asimple additive structure. This form implies that as theconsumer gains incremental experiences in a givendomain of consumption, s/he simply adds additionalscripts to situational repertoire. No reorganization ofexisting scripts occurs as a result of learning about newsituations. Thus, if a consumer had experienced situ-



10/14


ations A, B, and C, and then learned about situationsD and E, his/her situational repertoire would simplybe incremented by these latter two scripts. Hence,

A,B, C + D,E = A,B, C,D,E.

If this form of typology for situational repertoireemerges from the focus groups,8 then the constructmay be defined straightforwardly s the sum of all sit-uations identified by a subject in a given domain ofconsumption, summed across all consumption do-mains. Similarly, a measure of situational repertoirewithin a given domain is the number of different situ-ations i4entified by the consumer within that domain.

A second form of situational repertoire ypology thatmay emerge from the focus groups is one which isintegrative. This form of typology would result rom thecognitive reorganization of situational scripts as in-creased experience was obtained. That is, experienc-ing a novel consumption situation might result not onlyin its being added to situational repertoire, but also tothe reformation of scripts already existing in reper-toire. Under this set of conditions, if situations A, B,and C were already in repertoire and novel situationsD and E were encountered, their addition to the rep-ertoire may result in a typology consisting of W, X, Y,and Z. That is, the absolute number of scripts may bereduced (or enlarged) and their identifying character-istics altered. Hence,

A,B,C + D,E= W,X, Y,Z.

A useful approach o measurement under this set ofconditions would be to first construct profiles of thesituational repertoire used by consumers having low,moderate, and high levels of experience in variousdomains of consumption. A given consumer could thenbe classified by the proximity of his/her repertoire toa high , moderate , or low level profile for eachdomain. Although some cognitive reorganization isknown to occur in cognitive structure as a result ofincreased experience, it is not yet documented thatsimilar reorganization effects occur for scripts (Scott,Osgood, and Peterson 1979). Thus, the simpler addi-tive model may prove valid.

Role AccumulationThe concept of role accumulation has been recently

introduced o consumer behavior heory argely hroughthe efforts of Wallendorf Hirschman and Wallendorf1979;Wallendorf 1979;Zaltman and Wallendorf 1979).The concept refers to the number of nonoverlappingroles being performed by an individual that requiresubstantively different activities to properly performthem.

To operationalize the concept, two measures arerequired-the number of different roles performed bythe individual and the relative degree of overlap amongthese roles. The first aspect may be operationalizedby asking the individual to what formal and informalgroups s/he belongs and in what social activities s/heparticipates. These can be compared for duplicate re-porting, and adjusted accordingly (Hirschman andWallendorf 1979). The degree of overlap among thevarious roles the individual performs can be measuredby asking him/her to report the requirements or eachrole, and then comparing hese across the role set. Theunderlying assumption is that the more similar or ho-mogeneous the role set as measured by overlap of rolerequirements, the less incremental consumptionknowledge the individual will need to perform eachone. Conversely, the more heterogeneous the role set,the more consumption knowledge will be required.

Inherent Novelty SeekingInherent novelty seeking may be measured by scalesconstructed of items asking the individual how willings/he is to seek information hat is new and different.A combination of generalized/abstract questions andspecific/concrete questions pertinent to several con-sumption domains may be most appropriate or ade-quately assessing inherent novelty seeking. For ex-ample, generalized items may include such questionsas, How willing are you to seek out novel informa-tion? or Do you search for the new and different?More specific items could include such questions as,

How willing are you to try new fashions or Doyou look for new foods to eat? , which cover a broadspectrum of consumption domains.

This approach to measuring nherent novelty seek-ing would generate both a composite set of domain-specific scores, which should correlate highly with theindividual's score on general items. Further, the useof a battery of domain-specific questions could helpin locating consumption areas in which the consumeris especially high/low in novelty seeking. Consumerscould be compared not only as to their overall novelty-seeking scores, but also as to the similarity betweentheir domain-specific profiles for novelty seeking.

Actualized Novelty Seeking

Actualized novelty seeking may be measured byasking the individual what sources s/he consults toobtain novel information. Thus, measures such as news-paper and magazine subscriptions, book purchases,movie attendance, and inquiries to other individualsmay be used to form indices that would tap actualizednovelty seeking. Note, that it is the acquisition or pur-chase of the medium (or questioning another person)that is viewed as constituting actualized novelty seek-ing, not the actual consumption of novel information.

8 Indication hat this is the appropriate orm would be the focusgroup inding hat highlyexperienced onsumers named all situationsgiven by less experienced consumers plus several additional ones.



11/14


An approach somewhat analogous to that describedfor inherent novelty seeking may be used to developan operational axonomy for actualized novelty seek-ing. This would require the a priori classification ofvarious information media into general and consump-

tion domain-specific groups. The individual consumercould then be assigned a set of scores for actualizednovelty seeking based on how many media vehicless/he used, and into which categories they fell. Someinformation ources, e.g., Time magazine, would fallinto the general nformation ategory, whereas others,e.g., Tennis magazine, would be classified in a specificconsumption domain. Composite scores could be de-veloped by summing across specific domains and com-bining with the general category. Further, individualprofiles of domain-specific nformation xposure couldalso be calculated.

Vicarious InnovativenessThis concept may be measured by asking the indi-

vidual what new products and consumption situationss/he has learned about within a given time frame, butnot actually adopted or experienced. An importantaspect of investigating vicarious nnovativeness n thisway is that the individual may also be asked to reportthe source(s) from which s/he learned of the novelproduct or consumption situation. This will aid in trac-ing the diffusion of novel information.

Second, the individual may be questioned concerningthe level and accuracy of knowledge s/he has acquiredabout the novel stimulus. This may have implicationsfor marketers and other social change agents who areconcerned with developing accurate perceptions of theinnovation prior to adoption.

The operational measure of vicarious innovative-ness, thus, should have at least three components: (1)the absolute number of innovations i.e., new productsand novel consumption ituations) earned about withina given time frame, (2) the level of knowledge abouteach innovation, and (3) the relative accuracy of theknowledge about each innovation. As a key linkagebetween vicarious innovativeness and actualized in-novativeness is the cognitive ability of the consumerto compare novel with presently possessed alterna-tives, it is clear that evaluative competence will dependnot only on the volume of information possessed, butalso upon its quality, i.e., accuracy.

A consumer who has vicariously acquired a gooddeal of inaccurate information on an innovation maybe less able to properly evaluate its utility than a con-sumer who has acquired less, but more accurate, in-formation regarding ts attributes. Hence, if researchconducted using the vicarious innovativeness con-struct is to have value for studies of consumer satis-faction/dissatisfaction, or example, not only the vol-ume but quality of vicariously acquired informationconcerning nnovations must be measured.

Adoptive InnovativenessThis concept may be perhaps most appropriately

measured by asking the individual what products s/hehas purchased (or otherwise adopted) within a certaintime frame, and to report the degree of novelty s/heperceives the product to have compared with otherproducts presently adopted. All products acquired byan individual within the time frame are to be includedand arrayed along a continuum of novelty, as perceivedby the individual. This method of operationalizingadoptive innovativeness appropriately refocuses theattention of consumer researchers away from theirperceptions and definitions of what constitutes a prod-uct innovation and toward what the consumer per-ceives and defines as a product innovation. A furtheruseful extension of this measurement approach is toask the individual how much product knowledge s/hepossessed (through vicarious innovativeness) prior toadopting the new product, and how accurate thatknowledge proved to be subsequent to adoption.

Use InnovativenessTo measure use innovativeness, the individual can

be asked a set of questions such as, Have you en-countered any new consumption problems lately thatyou solved by using a product you already had? andthen asking the consumer to describe the new use towhich the product was put. A complementary ap-proach to operationalizing his construct would be toask, Have you used any product(s) you own in a newor unusual way? and following up by asking him/herto describe the conditions that prompted his instanceof use innovativeness. Both these question types couldbe accompanied by complementary nquiries concern-ing the degree of novelty perceived by the consumerto characterize he new use.

Thus, use innovativeness also has two components:(1) the number of instances in which new uses oc-curred, and (2) the degree of novelty characterizingeach new use.

CONCLUSIONS, MPLICATIONS, ANDAPPLICATIONS

The implications of this conceptual framework or

consumer research can perhaps best beillustrated

through an example. Let us consider how the frame-work might be applied o studying he adoption processfor a home computer. Several companies, notablyApple, have been marketing small computers that, inpricing and programming tructure, are amenable toadoption by individual consumers. From both a be-havioral theory and marketing trategy perspective, itmay be useful to study the factors influencing adoptionof such a complex and versatile innovation.

First, it would be anticipated hat individuals having



12/14


high levels of inherent novelty seeking would be influ-enced by this characteristic to monitor a wide rangeof media (e.g., magazines, television programming,newspapers) through which they may be exposed toinformation egarding home computers. That s, strongtendencies toward inherent novelty seeking shouldlead to high levels of actualized novelty seeking and,hence, to the potential for exposure to information e-garding he home computer nnovation. Further, f ac-tualized novelty seeking were especially high in a con-sumption domain such as computer technology, thenthe probability or exposure is even greater.

The level and domain-specific pattern of actualizednovelty seeking will determine he likelihood of vicar-ious adoption of the home-computer nnovation con-cept. However, to adopt the innovation n a vicarioussense, the consumer must not only be exposed to in-formation, but must cognitively acquire knowledge ofthe computer and its attributes. It is at the vicariousadoption stage that research can first be applied in ameaningful ashion to innovation adopters and nona-dopters. Although they have not yet acted, con-sumers who have gained knowledge of the home com-puter innovation do differ in an important way fromthose who do not have this knowledge, for it is fromthe pool of vicarious adopters that actual adopterswill later be drawn. Hence, research on the charac-teristics of vicarious adopters could be useful for theformulation of strategies designed to transform vicar-ious knowledge into product purchase.

Those persons who, after learning about the home-computer innovation (i.e., vicarious adopters), pur-chase it are exhibiting actualized innovativeness. Ac-tual adopters will likely constitute only a subset ofvicarious adopters. Therefore, in conducting researchon innovation adoption, t may be useful to incorporateat least three nested populations into the design:(1) persons who never gain awareness, (2) persons whogain awareness (i.e., adopt vicariously), but who donot adopt, and (3) persons who adopt both vicariouslyand actually. The absolute and relative size of all threegroups will have a great deal of impact on the diffusionof the innovation.

One issue that this example raises is that of the fac-tors that may influence the translation of vicarious ntoactualized nnovativeness. One useful variable o con-sider here is role accumulation. Persons who have ac-cumulated roles that necessitate or would benefit fromthe acquisition of a home computer can be expectedto have a higher than average likelihood of purchasingone. It is interesting to note that in many consumerresearch studies of innovativeness, the need of the in-dividual for a product to perform his/her role(s) hasrarely been taken nto account. Thus, although a potentreason an individual may choose to adopt a home com-puter is because s/he needs it for role performance,rarely has this factor ever been explicitly included in

the research. The notion of role accumulation wouldseem to be one effective way of accomplishing his.

A second factor that may influence the translationof vicarious innovativeness into actualized innova-tiveness is consumer creativity. This construct canaffect the decision to adopt in two ways. First, thedenser the interconcept network possessed by the con-sumer, the better able s/he should be to comprehendthe functioning of the innovation. This will, of course,be moderated by the domain-specific networks char-acterizing he individual. In the case of the home-com-puter innovation, an individual with a dense network,especially in technology-related domains, may be ableto generate several realistic comparisons between thehome computer and several alternative products. S/hemay reason, for example, that -the home computercould be used to replace a calculator, a series of filingcabinets, and a checkbook.

Also, the highly creative consumer may have a well-developed repertoire of consumption problems thehome computer could be used to solve. S/he couldmentally construct alternative performance environ-ments for the computer innovation and, based on itsutility in solving these cognitively generated prob-lems, decide whether actual purchase was desirable.Thus, high levels of consumer creativity do not nec-essarily increase the probability hat a home computerwill be adopted, but do ensure that the innovation willbe given appropriate onsideration.

To complete our example, let us assume that due torole requirements and creative perceptions of productperformance, he consumer purchases the home com-puter. One useful avenue of research may be to testthe congruence between anticipated and actual per-formance of the innovation. That is, how accurate wasthe consumer's mental construction of the home com-puter's functioning? The answer could contribute agreat deal to our understanding f consumer satisfac-tion and dissatisfaction.

A second potentially valuable area of investigationwould be instances of use innovativeness regarding hehome computer. A versatile and complex innovationsuch as this readily lends itself to use innovativeness.Without experience, it is unlikely that the adoptercould a priori envision the variety of uses to which thehome computer could be put. Once it is adopted andits capabilities have become more familiar o the con-sumer, it probably will be applied to several problemsituations not viewed as relevant at the outset. Onemay hypothesize that the more inherent lexibility pos-sessed by a product, the greater the incidence of useinnovativeness.

Although this example is hypothetical, it illustratesthe variety of research applications suggested by thisframework. It is a structure that, in its present form,can unite constructs such as novelty seeking, newproduct adoption, and the acquisition of additional



13/14


roles that previously were often examined n isolation.Extended beyond the linkages developed here, addi-tional aspects of consumer behavior, such as reactionsof satisfaction and dissatisfaction, may also beincorporated.

[Received July 1979. Revised June 1980.]

REFERENCESAcker, Mary, and McReynolds, P. (1967), The Need for

Novelty: A Comparison f Six Instruments, Psycho-logical Record, 17, 177-82.

Arieti, Silvano (1976), Creativity: The Magic Synthesis,New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Barron, Frank (1968), Creativity and Personal Freedom,New York: Van Nostrand.

(1969), Creative Person and Creative Process, NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Belk, Russell W. (1975), Situational Variables and Con-sumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 2,157-64.

Berlyne, Daniel E. (1960), Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity,New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Bettman, James R. (1979), Memory Factors in ConsumerChoice: A Review, Journal of Marketing, 43, 37-53.

Cattell, Raymond B. (1975), Personality and Motiv-ation: Structure and Measurement, New York:Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Dasen, Paul R. (1972), Cross-Cultural Piagetian Re-search: A Summary, Journal of Cross-Cultural Re-search, 3, 23-39.

Faison, Edmund W. J. (1977), The Neglected VarietyDrive: A Useful Concept for Consumer Behavior,Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 172-5.

Farley, Frank, and Farley, Sonja V. (1967), Extroversionand Stimulus-Seeking Motivation, Jouirnal of Con-sulting Psychology, 31, 215-6.

Feldman, Charles., Lee B., McLean J., Pillemer D., andMurray, J. (1974), The Development of Adaptive Intel-ligence, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Ind., p. 9.

Finger, Frank W., and Mook, D. G. (1971), Basic Drives,Annual Review of Psychology, 22, 8-9.

Fiske, Donald W., and Maddi, Salvatore R., (1961), Fulnc-tions of Varied Experience, Homewood, IL: DorseyPress.

Flavell, John H. (1977), Cognitive Development, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Guilford, James P. (1965), Intellectual Factors in Produc-tive Thinking, in Productive Thinking in Educ'ation,Washington, DC: National Education Association,pp. 5-20.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1980), Consumer Creativity:Nature, Measurement and Application, Proceedings,Second Annual National Conference on Marketing The-ory, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association,forthcoming.

(1979), Some Cognitive Notions Concerning Per-ception and Preference, working paper, GraduateSchool of Business, New York University.

, and Wallendorf, Melanie (1979), CorrelationsAmong Three Indicators of Stimulus Variation, n Ad-

vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, ed. William L.Wilkie, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for ConsumerResearch.

McClelland, David C. (1955), Studies in Motivation, NewYork: Appleton, Century Crofts.

MacKinnon, Donald W. ed.,(1961),

The CreativePerson,Berkeley: University of California Press.

(1962), The Nature and Nurture of Creative Tal-ent, American Psychologist, 17, 485-95.

(1965), Personality and the Realization of CreativePotential, American Psychologist, 20, 273-81.

Midgley, David F. (1976), A Simple Mathematical Theoryof Innovative Behavior, Journal of Consumer Re-search, 3, 31-41.

(1977), Innovation and New Product Marketing, NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

, and Dowling, Grahame R. (1978), Innovative-ness: The Concept and Its Measurement, Journal ofConsumer Research, 4, 229-42.

Miller, Kenneth E., and Ginter, James L. (1979), An In-vestigation of Situational Variation in Brand ChoiceBehavior and Attitude, Journal of Marketing Re-search, 16, 111-23.

Nissen, Harold W. (1951), Phylogenetic Comparison, nExperimental Psychology, ed. Samuel S. Stevens, NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Norman, Donald A. (1976),Memory and Attention, 2nd ed.,New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ostlund, Lyman E. (1974), Perceived Innovation Attri-butes as Predictors of Innovativeness, Journal of Con-sumer Research, 1, 23-9.

Piaget, Jean (1972), Intellectual Evolution from Adoles-cence to Adulthood, Human Development, 15, 1-12.

Robertson, Thomas S. (1971), Innovative Behavior and Com-munication, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,Inc.

Rogers, Everett M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, NewYork: The Free Press.(1976), New Product Adoption and Diffusion,

Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 290-301., and Shoemaker, Floyd F. (1971), Communication

of Innovations, New York: The Free Press.Schiffman, Leon G., and Kanuk, Leslie L. (1978),Consumer

Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, nc.Schrank, Robert C., and Abelson, Robert P. (1977),Scripts,

Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Associates.

Scott, William A., Osgood, D. Wayne, and Peterson, Chris-topher (1979), Cognitive Structure: Theory and Meas-urement of Individual Differences, New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Simon, Herbert A. (1979), Information ProcessingModelsof Cognition, in Annual Review of Psychology, eds.

Mark R. Rosenzweig and Lyman W. Porter, Palo Alto,CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. pp. 363-96.

Taylor, Charles W., ed. (1959), Proceedings of The ThirdUniversity of Utah Research Conference on the Iden-tification of Creative Scientific Talent, Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

Taylor, John W. (1977), A Striking Characteristic of In-novators, Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 104-7.104-7.

Venkatesan, M. (1973), Cognitive Consistency and Nov-



14/14


elty Seeking, in Consumer Behavior: TheoreticalSources, eds. Scott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 354-84.

Wallach, Milton A. and Kogan, Nathan (1965), Modes ofThinking in Young Children, New York: Holt, Rine-

hart & Winston.Wallendorf, Melanie (1979), Role Accumulation and the

Diffusion of Innovations, unpublished doctoral disser-

tation, Graduate School of Business, University ofPittsburgh.

Welsh, George S. (1975), Creativity and Intelligence, Insti-tute for Research in Social Science, Chapel Hill,

NC: University of North Carolina Press.Zaltman, Gerald, and Wallendorf, Melanie 1979), ConsumerBehavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

innovativesness, novelty seeking

Documents