Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 12, Issue 1–2, pp 159–175 | Cite as

Concurrent validity of a measure of innovative cognitive style

  • Benoy Joseph
  • Shailesh J. Vyas
Article

Abstract

Identifying innovative consumer segments remains an important goal for marketers of new products. This article examines the merits of a recently developed marketing oriented scale, called “open processing”, which is purported to measure an individual's openness or cautiousness tendencies with regard to new products, new sensations, new experiences, and information about them. In a test of the scale's concurrent validity, using self reports of new product trail/purchase behavior among female shoppers, the study found open processors to be more innovative than cautious processors, as was predicted. The study also explores the relationships between open processing, innovative behavior, and various demographic variables. Results indicated that (1) open processing is almost as strong a predictor of innovativeness as four commonly used demographic variables combined; and (2) that open processing is an influential moderator of the relationship between demographics and innovative behavior.

Keywords

Open Processing Concurrent Validity Moderator Variable Cognitive Style Consumer Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, L.A. 1979, “Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective.” Studies in Diffusion of Innovation, Discussion Paper No. 60, Dept. of Geography, The Ohio State University. Columbus.Google Scholar
  2. Craig, S.C., and James L. Ginter. 1975. “An Empirical Test of a Scale for Innovativeness.” In Mary Jane Schlinger (Ed.),Advances in Consumer Research 2 (Chicago: Association for Consumer Research) 555–562.Google Scholar
  3. Donnelly, James H., Jr., and John M. Ivancevich. 1974. “A Methodology for Identifying Innovator Characteristics of New Brand Purchasers.”Journal of Marketing Research 9 (August) 331–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Engel, James F., and Roger D. Blackwell. 1982.Consumer Behavior, 4th ed. Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hair, Joseph F., Jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and B.J. Grablowsky. 1979.Multivariate Data Analysis. Tulsa: PPC Books.Google Scholar
  6. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1980. “Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity.”Journal of Consumer Research 7 (December) 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacoby, J. 1979. “A Multiple-Indicant Approach for Studying Innovators.” Purdue Papers in Consumer Psychology, No. 108. Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University.Google Scholar
  8. Kaigler-Evans, Karen L. 1975. “Fashion Information Source Effects in Inter-personal Communication.” Unpublished doctoral disseration, The Ohio State University.Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, Vol. 36, p. 38978B. (University Microfilms No. 76-3466, 162).Google Scholar
  9. Kassarjian, Harold H. 1971. “Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review.”Journal of Marketing 8 (November) 409–418.Google Scholar
  10. Leavitt, Clark, and John Walton. 1975. “Development of a Scale for Innovativeness.” In Mary Jane Schlinger (Ed.),Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 2. Association for Consumer Research, 545–554.Google Scholar
  11. Leavitt, Clark, and John Walton. 1976. “Personality and Adoption Behavior.” Unpublished working paper. The Ohio State University, Columbus. (Available from the senior author).Google Scholar
  12. Midgley, D.F. 1977.Innovation and New Product Marketing. New York: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  13. Midgley, David F., and Grahame R. Dowling. 1978. “Innovativeness: The Concept and its Measurement.”Journal of Consumer Research 4 (March) 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Robertson, Thomas S. 1971.Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  15. Robertson, Thomas S., and James N. Kennedy. 1968. “Prediction of Consumer Innovators: Application of Multiple Discriminant Analysis.”Journal of Marketing Research 5 (February) 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogers, Everett M. 1976. “New Product Adoption and Diffusion.”Journal of Consumer Research 2 (March) 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogers, E.M. and J. David Stanfield. 1966. “Adoption and Diffusion of New Products: Emerging Generalizations and Hypotheses.” Paper presented at the Conference on the Application of Sciences to Marketing Management, Purdue University.Google Scholar
  18. Rogers, E.M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. 1971.Communication of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rogers, E.M., and Rekha Agarwala-Rogers. 1976.Communication in Organizations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Saunders, D.R. 1956. “Moderator Variables in Prediction.”Educational and Psychological Measurement 16, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sharma, Subhash, R.M. Durand, and O. Gur-Arie. 1981. “Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables.”Journal of Marketing Research 18 (August) 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Villani, Kathryn E.A., and Yoram Wind. 1975. “On the Usage of ‘Modified’ Personality Trait Measures in Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 2 (December) 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walton, John, Eric N. Berkowitz and Clark Leavitt. 1978. “Validation of the Consumer Creativity Scale.”Proceedings of the 86th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Division 23, 47–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benoy Joseph
    • 1
  • Shailesh J. Vyas
  1. 1.Cleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations