Abstract
Based on the nature of their involvement with the target product category three market segments of consumers of fashion innovations are identified. It is hypothesised that each segment of consumers should use a different decision process when adopting an innovation. The major findings of this study are that the more innovative consumers used a less extensive pattern of decision making activity than consumers who were either less involved with the product category or were concerned about how the purchase would effect their perceived social status. These findings suggest that involvement with the category is different to involvement in the decision making process, and that the latter is somewhat contingent on situational factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barry, T. E. (1987). “The Development of the Hierarchy of Effects: An Historical Perspective,”Current Issues and Research in Advertising 251–295.
Dowling, G. R., and D. F. Midgley. (1978). “The Decision Process Models of Antarctic Travel Innovators,”Australian Journal of Management 3, 2, 147–162.
Dowling, G. R., and D. G. Midgley. (1988). “Identifying the Coarse and Fine Structure of Market Segments,”Decision Sciences 19, 4, 830–847.
Everitt, B. S. (1974).Cluster Analysis. London: Halsted Press.
Gatignon, H., and T. S. Robertson. (1991). “Innovative Decision Processes.” In Robertson, T. S., and H. H. Kassarjian (eds.),Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 316–348.
Haskins, J. (1964). “Factual Recall as a Measure of Advertising Effectiveness,”Journal of Advertising Research 4, 2–8.
Krugman, H. (1965). “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement,”Public Opinion Quarterly 29, 349–356.
Marriott, F. C. H. (1971). “Practical Problems in a Method of Cluster Analysis,”Biometrics 27, 501–514.
Midgley, D. F. (1983). “Patterns of Interpersonal Information Seeking for the Purchase of a Symbolic Product,”Journal of Marketing Research 20, 1, 74–83.
Midgley, D. F., and G. R. Dowling. (1978). “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement,”The Journal of Consumer Research 4, 229–242.
Midgley, D. F., and Dowling, G. R. (1993). “A Longitudinal Study of Product Form Innovation: The Interaction Between Predispositions and Social Messages,”The Journal of Consumer Research 19, 4, 611–625.
Moriarty, S. E. (1983). “Beyond the Hierarchy of Effects: A Conceptual Framework,”Current Issues and Research in Advertising 6, 45–56.
Palda, K. (1966). “The Hypothesis of a Hierarchy of Effects: An Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research 3, 13–24.
Ray, M. (1973). “Marketing Communication and the Hierarchy of Effects.” In Clarke, P. (ed.).New Models for Mass Communication Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, 147–176.
Raymond, C. (1965). “Must Advertising Communicate to Sell?”Harvard Business Review 43, 148–161.
Rogers, E. M. (1983).Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., and F. Shoemaker. (1971).Communication of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Spearitt, P., and J. R. Davis. (1974).Sydney at the Census. Canberra: Australian National University.
Vaughn, R. (1980). “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model,”Journal of Advertising Research 20 (October), 27–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Thanks are expressed to John Rossiter, Judy Zaichkowsky, and the editor and reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dowling, G.R., Midgley, D.F. The decision processes of innovative communicators and other adopters. Marketing Letters 4, 297–308 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994349
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994349