Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility
to Interpersonal Influence
WILLIAM O. BEARDEN
RICHARD G. NETEMEYER
JESSE E. TEEL *
The development of a scale for measuring consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence is described. Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence is hypothesized as a general trait that varies across individuals and is related to other individual traits and characteristics (McGuire 1968). The construct is defined as the need
to identify with or enhance one's image in the opinion of Significant others through
the acquisition and use of products and brands, the willingness to conform to the
expectations of others regarding purchase decisions, and / or the tendency to learn
about products and services by observing others or seeking information fr~m <:>t~­
ers. A series of studies provides evidence to support the convergent and dlscnmlnant validity of a two-dimensional scale.
A
n important determinant of an individual's behavior is others' influence. Portrayal of products being consumed in social situations and the ~se
of prominent/ attractive spokespersons endorsmg
products is evidence of this belief. Further, models
used to explain consumer behavior frequently include interpersonal influence. These models recognize that consumer behavior cannot be fully understood unless consideration is given to the effects of
interpersonal influence on development of attitud~s,
norms, values, aspirations, and purchase behavlOr
(Stafford and Cocanougher 1977).
Our objective is to develop a scale to assess c<;>nsumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence, WhICh
is assumed to be a general trait that varies across individuals. This construct is derived from McGuire's
(1968) concept of influenceability and is consistent
with early research (e.g., Allen 1965; Asch 1958; Cox
and Bauer 1964; Janis 1954), which demonstrated
that individuals differ in their responses to social
influence. Our efforts are also consistent with
Kassarjian's (1971) suggestion that domain specific
individual difference measures be developed to study
personality issues in consumer research.
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
THEORY AND RESEARCH
An early review by McGuire (1968) summarized
numerous theoretical and empirical articles dealing
with various aspects of susceptibility to interpersonal
influence and the relationship of susceptibility to
other individual traits and characteristics. This review concluded that susceptibility to interpersonal
influence is a general trait that varies across persons
and that a person's relative influenceability in one situation tends to have a significant positive relationship to his or her influenceability in a range of other
social situations. McGuire (1968, p. 1134) also cited
evidence showing that conformity and persuasibility
exist across occurrences. That is, people who conform
to one source on one issue will likely conform to other
sources on other issues.
Further, susceptibility to influence by others is related to other personal characteristics (e.g., self-esteem, intelligence) (McGuire 1968, p. 1132; Petty
and Cacioppo 1981, pp. 80-84). Cox and Bauer
(1964) pointed out that people with low self-esteem
comply with others' suggestions to avoid social disapproval. Cox and Bauer's research demonstrated that
a relationship between self-confidence and persuasibility, previously found among men, also existed
among women under some conditions. Likewise,
Janis (1954) cited both clinical and correlational
·William O. Bearden and Jesse E. Teel are Professors of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Universit~ ofS,?uth Carolina Columbia, SC 29208. Richard G. Netemeyer IS Assistant Profess~r of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Lou!siana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. The authors wish to
thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
throughout the review process and Robert Burnkrant, Gil Churchill, and Paul Peter who commented on an initial draft of the article.
473
© JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH. Vol. 15. March 1989
474
studies that suggested that some people consistently
are amenable to social influence while others are consistently resistant. Based on his research, Janis (1954,
p. 518) concluded that individuals with low self-esteem tend to be more readily influenced than others.
Likewise, Berkowitz and Lundy (1957) found that
persons low in interpersonal confidence are more susceptible to peer influence.
Consumer Susceptibility
to Interpersonal Influence
Although susceptibility to interpersonal influence
appears to be an important individual difference variable for the study of consumer behavior, it unfortunately has been neglected as a general trait in recent
literature. However, numerous recent articles from
psychological and consumer research have documented the existence of manifest interpersonal influence upon individual decision processes (e.g., Cohen and Golden 1972; Kassarjian and Robertson
1981; Moscovici 1985; Sherif 1935). In consumer research, these studies include the efforts of Ford and
Ellis (1980), Moschis (1976), Stafford (1966), and
Witt and Bruce (1972). However, most of these investigated the tendency of subjects to conform to group
norms or to modify their judgments based upon
others' evaluations and did not address the various
types of interpersonal influence operative in a given
situation. Only a few st.udies have addressed the dimensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influence
and its effects upon decision processes. In this regard,
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) posited that interpersonal influence is manifested through either normative or informational influences.
Burnkrant and Cousineau (1975) defined normative influence as the tendency to conform to the expectations of others. Consumer research has separated normative influence into value expressive and
utilitarian influences (Bearden and Etzel 1982; Park
and Lessig 1977;Price,Feick,andHigie 1987). Value
expressiveness reflects the individual's desire to enhance self-image by association with a reference
group. Value expressiveness is motivated by the
individual's desire to enhance or support his or her
self-concept through referent identification (Kelman
1961). Value expressive influences operate through
the process of identification, which occurs when an
individual adopts a behavior or opinion of another
because the behavior or opinion is associated with
satisfying a self-defining relationship (Brinberg and
Plimpton 1986; Park and Lessig 1977; Price et al.
1987). Value expressive influence was found to vary
across selection decisions of products that differed in
consumption conspicuousness and of services that
varied regarding consumer preference heterogeneity
and referent coorientation (similarity). Utilitarian
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
influence, the other type of normative influence mentioned, is reflected in individuals' attempts to comply
with the expectations of others to achieve rewards or
avoid punishments, and it operates through the process of compliance (Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975,
p. 207; see also Bearden and Etzel 1982; Park and Lessig 1977; Price et al. 1987). Compliance occurs when
individuals conform to the expectations of others to
gain rewards or to avoid punishments mediated by
others.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) defined informational
influence as the tendency to accept information from
others as evidence about reality. Informational influence may occur in two ways. Individuals may either search for information from knowledgeable others or make inferences based upon the observation of
the behavior of others (Park and Lessig 1977). Informational influence operates through the process of internalization, which occurs if information from others increases the individual's knowledge about some
aspect of the environment. Informational influence
has been found to affect consumer decision processes
regarding product evaluations (Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Cohen and Golden 1972; Pincus and Waters 1977) and product/brand selections (Bearden
and Etzel 1982; Park and Lessig 1977).
In summary, recent research on manifest susceptibility to interpersonal influence has suggested that it
is a multidimensional construct. Consequently, it
seems reasonable to assume that the general trait of
susceptibility to interpersonal influence also is multidimensional. Hence, recognizing the existence of alternative manifestations of interpersonal influence
documented by recent research, consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence is defined as the need
to identify or enhance one's image with significant
others through the acquisition and use of products
and brands, the willingness to conform to the expectations of others regarding purchase decisions, and /
or the tendency to learn about products and services
by observing others and/ or seeking information from
others.
An initial effort to develop measures of three dimensions of manifest susceptibility to interpersonal
influence was reported by Park and Lessig (1977). In
their research, 14 statements were developed to assess
value expressive, utilitarian, and informational influences. The statements were projective and framed
for particular product and brand decisions. That is,
respondents were asked on an item-by-item basis how
"relevant" each interpersonal influence statement
would be for an "unspecified other" for a given
product/brand purchase. Although the Park and Lessig items were useful in several subsequent studies
(Bearden and Etzel 1982; Brinberg and Plimpton
1986), these measures have limitations. To compare
the Park and Lessig measures with general personality
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
traits and individual characteristics, their statements
have to be reworded so that the statements are not
product and/ or situation specific. Further, phrasing
the terms so that they are relevant to an unspecified
other may add error that could cause some people to
respond based either upon their own feelings or salient others' influence. Additionally, Park and Lessig
(1977) did not report estimates of either internal consistency or test-retest reliability. Their only evaluation of the statements was a multitrait-multimethod
analysis in which two products were used as traits.
Other evidence of validity was not provided nor was
the dimensionality of the measures tested.
OVERVIEW OF SCALE
DEVELOPMENT AND
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The extant theoretical and empirical literature regarding the nature of susceptibility to interpersonal
influence suggests that it is a general trait with multiple dimensions. The limitations of prior operational
measures along with conflicting findings in related research suggest the need for a measure that can be applied across research settings without modification
and that has been examined for reliability and validity and tested for dimensionality. Consequently, the
objectives of the present research were to develop and
test a general measure of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence.
Development of the present scale began with a literature review that generated a large pool of items designed to measure the dimensions of interpersonal influence. The items were evaluated for content validity
using judging procedures, resulting in a reduced set of
items. A questionnaire then was administered to 220
adult consumers to assess the dimensionality and reliability of the present measures of susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Measurement items remaining
after this study were reevaluated with data from a
convenience sample of 141 student subjects. This
study resulted in the final form and content of the
present scale. Next, a series of studies was conducted
to provide additional evidence regarding the validity
and reliability of the scale. These studies consisted of
comparisons of the present scale with individual
difference measures, behavioral indices, external
judge rankings, and motivation to comply.
SCALE CONTENT
An original pool of 166 items was generated from a
review of prior research for use in the development of
the present consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence scale. Seven-place bipolar agree / disagree
scales followed each of the statements (e.g., "When
buying products, I generally purchase those brands
475
that I think others will approve of."). Following the
item generation step, ambiguous items and statements with essentially identical meaning were eliminated, resulting in a revised pool of 135 items. Faculty
and Ph.D. students were then used as judges in an
evaluation ofthe content validity ofthe items. In this
analysis, the five judges were exposed to the definition
of each dimension plus a related explanation and an
example item and were asked to allocate the statements to each dimension or to a "not applicable" category.
Items that did not receive consistent classification
by at least four ofthe five judges were eliminated. This
initial analysis resulted in 86 statements for the three
dimensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Next, and similar to the procedure used by
Zaichkowsky (1985), an additional four judges were
given each construct's definition and asked to rate
each statement as clearly representative of the construct, somewhat representative, or not representative. For the three dimensions, only items evaluated
as clearly representative by three judges and somewhat representative by a fourth judge were retained.
This process eliminated 24 more items.
EVALUATING THE MEASURES
Initial Administration
Separate item analysis was performed for the 62
statements using the responses obtained from a convenience sample of 220 adult consumers. Items for
each dimension of susceptibility to interpersonal influence were interspersed throughout the questionnaire used in the initial data collection.
Item Reduction. The correlation of each item
with the total score for each of the three susceptibility
dimensions was computed (total scores were based
upon a priori specification of each item's content).
Items that did not have corrected item-to-total correlations above 0.50 were deleted (cf. Zaichkowsky
1985). Items that did not have statistically significant
higher correlations with the dimension to which they
were hypothesized to belong in comparison to item
correlations with remaining dimension total scores
also were deleted (Ruekert and Churchill 1984, p.
229). Principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotation (Churchill 1979) (restricting the solution to
three factors) also was performed. Several additional
items that failed to exhibit simple structure on factors
representing the three dimensions of reference group
influence were deleted. These analyses resulted in 18
items remaining in the scale.
Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
The reliability and structure of the remaining items
were examined using coefficient alpha and confirma-
476
tory factor analyses. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (Le., a three-factor correlated structure) revealed
three items with low item reliabilities. These items
then were deleted, leaving five items in each influence
category: informational, utilitarian, and value expressiveness. A second confirmatory factor analysis
was performed on the remaining 15 items. For a
three-factor correlated structure, the overall chisquare statistic was 139.46 (df = 87, p < 0.01). Each
indicator t-value exceeded 9.97 (p < 0.01). Although
the overall chi-square statistic was significant, these
results represent significant improvement over the
chi-square values of 499.69 (df = 90) and 1717.13
(df = 105) obtained from a one-factor model and a
null model. Coefficient alpha estimates were 0.86,
0.87, and 0.82 for informational, utilitarian, and
value expressiveness, respectively. The estimates of
construct reliability based upon the LISREL results
were 0.86, 0.87, and 0.83. The more conservative variance extracted estimates were 0.55, 0.58,
and 0.50.
Dimensionality and Convergent/Discriminant Validity. Analysis of the relationships among the three
factors revealed a very high intercorrelation (r = 0.92,
sd = 0.02) between the utilitarian and value expressiveness factors. Corresponding intercorrelations between the utilitarian and informational measures and
the value expressiveness and informational measures
were 0.44 (standard error = 0.06) and 0.37 (standard
error = 0.07), respectively. These results (similar to
those reported by Brinberg and Plimpton 1986)
render the dimensionality of the three-factor structure suspect. In an effort to investigate this concern,
two additional tests were performed.
First, to satisfy the requirements for discriminant
validity, variance extracted estimates should be
greater than the square of the correlation between
constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981, p. 46). This
condition was satisfied for the informational-value
expressiveness and the informational-utilitarian relationships, but was not met for the value expressiveness-utilitarian relation. This finding suggests that the
value expressiveness and utilitarian dimensions are
not distinct and that a two-factor model may be more
appropriate.
Second, tests were performed using the procedures
recommended by Burnkrant and Page (1982, p. 557).
In these tests, models, in which separate but correlated factors were allowed, were compared to models
in which each pair offactors was hypothesized to have
a unity correlation equivalent to a unidimensional
model for the various pairs of factors. The difference
between models is evaluated by a chi-square test with
one degree of freedom. In each case, the correlation
between factors was significant (one-tailed test, p
< 0.01). For the informational-value expressiveness
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
and informational-utilitarian comparisons, the confidence intervals for the correlation between factors
did not contain the number one. Further, these two
comparisons resulted in significant chi-square difference values with one degree offreedom of267 .57 and
328.22 for the informational-value expressive and informational-utilitarian comparisons. These results
support the discriminant and convergent validity of
the informational factor in comparison with the value
expressiveness and utilitarian factors. The very large
correlation coefficient (0.96) and the modest chisquare difference test (4.68) coupled with the variance extracted analysis recommended by Fornell and
Larcker (1981) do not support the modeling of utilitarian and value expressiveness measures as distinct
factors.
These analyses then resulted in a two-factor structure in which utilitarian and value expressive measures were combined into a single normative factor
(hereafter referred to as normative influence). The
coefficient alpha and construct reliability estimates
for this lO-item factor were both 0.91; the variance
extracted estimate was 0.52.
Second Administration
The reliability and validity of the remaining 15
items again were examined in a second administration to 141 undergraduate student subjects. Again,
the three-factor correlated model did not provide a
better representation ofthe data in terms of structure
(i.e., the number of factors and their discriminant
validity) than did a two-factor correlated model.
However, three items (one from each of the three
original dimensions) exhibited low reliability. These
items were dropped, which resulted in 12 remaining
items-four informational and eight normative. For
a two-factor correlated model, the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic for 15 and 12 indicators, respectively, were 186.61 (df = 89, p < 0.05) and lO7.41
(df = 52, p < 0.05). For the two-factor, 12-indicator
model, the intercorrelation between the two factors
was 0.44. The overall chi-square fit statistic for a unidimensional model was 255.60 (df = 54, p < 0.01).
(Reanalysis of the initial sample for the 12 items resulted in an overall chi-square statistic of 79.83 (df
= 53, p < 0.01). Thus, there was a chi-square difference statistic between the 12-item, two- and one-factor models of 148.09 (df = 2, p < 0.05). This indicated that the two-factor model provided a better representation of the data than did the one-factor model.
These analyses yielded a two-factor, 12-item scale
comprised Offour informational and eight normative
items. The mean scores, standard deviations, reliability estimates, and variance extracted estimates for
both samples are summarized in Table 1. The statements along with the factor analysis item loadings for
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
477
TABLE 1
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND VARIANCE EXTRACTED ESTIMATES
Reliability
No. of
items
Range
Mean
SO
Alpha
Construct
Initial administration
Informational
Normative
4
8
4-28
8-56
16.70
22.04
5.59
9.79
.83
.87
.83
.90
Second administration
Informational
Normative
4
8
4-28
8-56
19.02
27.18
4.45
9.15
.82
.88
.82
.89
Construct
Retest
Variance
extracted
.55
.53
.75
.79
.50
.54
TABLE 2
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE ITEMS
Corrected
item-to-total8
Item
no.
.61
.81
.86
.60
.45
.75
5
3
8
.75
.72
11
.69
.73
.63
.69
9
12
.70
.67
.64
.65
2
6
.78
.69
4
.75
.69
.66
.62
7
1
.74
.66
10
Factor
coefficient
Normative
Informational
Statement"
I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of them.
It is important that others like the products and brands I buy.
When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will
approve of.
If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect
me to buy.
I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others.
I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that
others purchase.
If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same brands that they buy.
I often identify with other people by purchasing the same products and brands they
purchase.
To make sure I buy the right product or brand, I often observe what others are
buying and using.
If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product .
I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a
product class.
I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy.
• Factor corrected item-ta-total correlations.
b The response format for each item is a seven-place rating scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1).
the initial sample are presented in Table 2. Coefficient
alpha estimates based upon the follow-up student
data were 0.82 and 0.88 for the informational and
normative factors, respectively. Based on the responses of 35 subjects participating in a follow-up
three weeks later, test-retest reliability estimates were
0.75 and 0.79 for the informational and normative
scales, respectively. All single-item and multi-item
test-retest correlation estimates were significant (p
< 0.01, one-tailed). Lastly, the 12-item two-factor
structure was tested for stability across the initial administration (n = 220) and the second administration (n = 141) samples. The group chi-square statistics for an invariate factor structure and for the two
groups separately were 186.19 (df = 118) and 173.38
= 106), respectively. This analysis then resulted
in a nonsignificant chi-square difference test (df
= 12).
(df
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
The scales for assessing the normative and informational dimensions of interpersonal influence were
evaluated further in five separate studies. In the first
study, we examined the relationships between the
present measures and measures of attention-to-social-comparison-information (A TSCI) (Lennox and
478
Wolfe 1984) and self-esteem (Eagly 1967). The attention-to-social-comparison-information measure
addresses the general tendency to conform and has
been found to be related to fear of the evaluation of
others. Lennox and Wolfe (1984) demonstrate that
the measure directly addresses conformity
(utilitarian) and the concern for the reaction of others (value expressive). Consequently, ATSCI was expected to be correlated more strongly with the normative factor than with the informational factor. For
self-esteem, it was predicted that both dimensions of
interpersonal influence would be inversely related to
self-esteem. These later predictions are consistent
with McGuire's (1968) and Stafford and Cocanougher's (1977) argument that susceptibility to
interpersonal influence is inversely related to self-esteem. In the second study, we investigated the relationships between the alternative measures ofsusceptibility to interpersonal influence with an aggregated
index of behaviors performed over multiple time periods. In the third and fourth studies, the measures
were correlated with external judges' rankings of the
subjects on the two dimensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influence. In the fifth study, we examined
the relationship between the present measures of normative and informational influence and motivation
to comply.
ATSCI and Self-Esteem
Forty-seven undergraduate business students responded to a questionnaire containing the 13-item
ATSCI measure of Lennox and Wolfe (1984), the 20item self-esteem scale described by Eagly (1967), and
the 12 interpersonal influence items included in the
present scale. The coefficient alpha estimates for the
ATSCI and the self-esteem scales were 0.82 and 0.88.
The ATSCI measure correlated more strongly (p
< 0.05 for a test of differences between dependent
correlations) (Bruning and Kintz 1977) with the normative dimension of the present scale (r = 0.68, p
< 0.05) than with the informational dimension (r
= 0.16, p < 0.05). Both dimensions of the present
scale had significant negative correlations with selfesteem. These estimates were -0.21 (p < 0.10) and
-0.23 (p < 0.05) for the normative and informational
measures. These results provide some evidence of
construct validity.
Relationships With Behavioral Indices
Similar to the procedures suggested by Epstein
(1979, 1980) and, more recently, by Lastovicka and
Joachimsthaler (1988), the normative and informational measures of susceptibility to interpersonal influence were correlated with an aggregated index of
consumer behaviors. As noted by Lastovicka and J oachimsthaler (1988), correlations between a trait and
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
individual behaviors typically are weak. Additionally, correlations between traits and behaviors across
single observations often are small. However, the
strength of these relationships tends to increase as
they are averaged over multiple observations and behaviors.
First, a convenience sample of 35 undergraduate
business students was used to elicit 21 normative and
17 informational behaviors reflecting the definitions
of the normative and informational dimensions of
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Example
normative behaviors included worrying about what
others thought of the respondent's selection of clothing, copying the purchase behavior of someone the
respondent admired, and having shown off something
bought or owned to seek approval of others. Example
informational behaviors included discussing products with friends or relatives, asking advice of others
prior to making a purchase, avoiding a purchase because others said it was unsatisfactory, and having
asked an "expert" about a contemplated purchase.
A questionnaire containing the normative and informational items then was administered to a new
sample of 43 subjects. The same 43 subjects reported
at four separate intervals their performances regarding the 21 normative and 17 informational behaviors
during the preceding 48 hours. Similar to the methods
used by Epstein (1979), the self-reported behavioral
measures were averaged over the odd (1,3) and even
(2,4) administrations. The correlation between the
even and odd summary averages for the normative
and informational indices were 0.72 and 0.80. Based
upon a 0,1 scoring and summed over observations
and behaviors, the mean and standard deviation for
the normative index were 21.75 and 11.49, respectively. Corresponding estimates for the informational
index were 23.76 and 13.78. The normative scale was
significantly correlated with the normative behavioral index (r = 0.37, p < 0.05). Further, the magnitude of this correlation compares favorably with the
trait behavior correlations reported by Epstein (1979,
p. 1118). Although not significant, the measure of informational interpersonal influence was correlated
positively with the informational behavioral index (r
= 0.15). Since only trait-behavior correlations of
0.29 or greater for single act criteria were reported by
Epstein (1979), it is not possible to compute an average correlation from the summary of his research.
However, an examination of Table 5 in Epstein
(1979, p. 1118) revealed that 13 percent of the correlations between traits and his "objective events" were
significant. In the present research, 33 percent and 12
percent, respectively, of the pairwise correlations between the average individual behaviors and the normative and informational measures of susceptibility
to interpersonal influence were significant (p < 0.05).
In general, these results provide stronger support for
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
the normative scale than they do for the informational scale.
External Judge Ratings
The present scale was evaluated in two studies involving external judges ranking subjects on the two
dimensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influence. The first external judge study was based upon
data collected from 72 members of either a university
fraternity (n = 39) or sorority (n = 33). Each of the
subjects responded to the 12 items comprising the
present scale. Two other members of each group evaluated their respective group members. Each judge
was given a copy of the normative and informational
dimensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influence and asked to rate each member of their group on
each dimension using a seven-point rating scale. The
single item measure was bounded by a rating of high
in susceptibility to normative (informational) influence to a rating of low in susceptibility to normative
(informational) influence. The average interjudge reliability was 0.66. The correlations between the judgment scores and the normative and informational
measures were 0.40 (p < 0.05) and 0.24 (p < 0.05),
respectively.
In the second external judge study, a convenience
sample of 43 undergraduates was given a questionnaire containing the proposed measures. They were
instructed to have the questionnaire completed by
someone they knew and to return it at the next class
meeting. Upon receipt of the completed questionnaire, subjects were given the descriptions of the normative and informational dimensions and asked to
rate the person who had completed the questionnaire.
The same rating scales employed in the fraternity /
sorority study were used to elicit the rankings. The
correlations between judge rankings and the normative and informational measures of the present scale
were 0.47 (p < 0.05) and 0.37 (p < 0.05), respectively.
Motivation To Comply
In a final test, it was predicted that both the normative and informational interpersonal influence scores
would be related positively to individual motivations
to comply with the expectations of others. Although
this relationship' should be strongest for the normative dimension, as noted by Miniard and Cohen
(1981), normative aspects (e.g., motivation to
comply) of the theory of reasoned action also are related to informational interpersonal influence. To
test this prediction, data were collected from 143 subjects. Subjects were provided with a shopping situation in which they were contemplating the purchase
of a pair of jeans in a clothing store. While in the pro-
479
cess of deciding about the purchase, a close friend ( or
classmate) entered the store and recommended purchase of the jeans being considered. Motivation to
comply was operationalized as the sum ofthree statements developed from Ajzen and Fishbein (1980).
The first item was operationalized as a seven-place
scale included as part of the statement: "With respect
to this purchase, I would very much like to/very
much not like to do what my close friend (classmate)
thinks I ought to do." The second item was operationalized as a seven-place bipolar unlikely /likely scale
following the statement: "Regarding this purchase, I
want to do what my close friend thinks I should do."
The third item was a five-category vertical scale ranging from "not-at-all" to "very strongly" and followed
the question: "How much do you want to do what
your close friend thinks you should do?" The coefficient alpha estimate of this measure of motivation to
comply was 0.81.
Examination of the correlations between the susceptibility to interpersonal influence measures and
motivation to comply supported the validity of the
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence
measures. The correlations between the motivation
to comply and the informational and the normative
measures were 0.39 (p < 0.05) and 0.59 (p < 0.05),
respectively. These correlations also were significantly different from one another based upon a test of
dependent correlations (p < 0.05).
DISCUSSION
We developed a two-dimensional measure of informational and normative interpersonal influence and
examined its reliability and validity. A 12-item, twofactor scale emerged from the scale development and
validation efforts. The scale was found to be reliable
and valid across multiple samples of both student and
nonstudent subjects. Correlations with other constructs demonstrated convergent and discriminant
validity. Replicated confirmatory factor analysis
demonstrated a stable two-factor correlated structure. This finding is consistent with other examinations of consumer interpersonal influence that limit
influence scores to normative and informational dimensions (cf. Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975).
Lastly, the scale was correlated as predicted with independent judge ratings, behavioral indices, and
measures of motivation to comply. Generally, correlations between the normative dimension and these
other measures consistently were stronger than the
correlations involving the informational measure.
However, the correlations between both measures of
susceptibility to interpersonal influence and the related measures demonstrated a range and pattern of
significance comparable to other scale development
studies (e.g., Cacioppo and Petty 1982; Swap and Rubin 1983).
480
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Certainly, additional tests ofthe scale are needed to
establish its validity and final form. A caveat is also
in order regarding the direction of the items. The final
form of the scale reported here included only positively worded statements, leaving open the possibility
for some response bias. Next, factor analysis of our
data consistently revealed a two-factor correlated
structure. However, our justification for multiple dimensions of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence largely was based upon research addressing
manifest susceptibility to interpersonal influence.
Further experimental research along the lines of
Burnkrant and Cousineau (1975) is warranted to provide further evidence of the dimensionality of interpersonal influence. Although we tried to adhere to
recommended scale development procedures, it may
also be that the final set of utilitarian items contains
statements that reflect response to a general normative influence rather than responses to gain rewards
and punishments. However, the items are couched in
terms of approval and the expectations of others,
which underly the process of compliance (Burnkrant
and Cousineau 1975).
[Received July 1987. Revised August 1988.J
REFERENCES
Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allen, Vernon L. (1965), "Situational Factors in Conformity," in Advances in Experimental Psychology, Vol.
2, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press,
133-175.
Asch, S. (1958), "Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," in Readings in
Social Psychology, for the Committee on the Teaching
of Social Psychology of the Society for the Psychological Studies of Social Studies, New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 174-182.
Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), "Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase
Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(September),183-194.
Berkowitz, Leonard and Richard M. Lundy (1957), "Personality Characteristics Related to Susceptibility to Influence by Peers or Authority Figures," Journal ofPersonality, 25 (I), 306-316.
Brinberg, David and Linda Plimpton (1986), "Self-Monitoring and Product Conspicuousness on Reference
Group Influence," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 13, ed. Richard J. Lutz, Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research, 297-300.
Bruning, James L. and B.L. Kintz (1977), Computational
Handbook ofStatistics, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Burnkrant, Robert E. and Alain Cousineau (1975), "Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer
Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (December),206-215.
- - and Thomas J. Page, Jr. (1982), "An Examination
of the Convergent, Discriminant, and Predictive Validity Of Fishbein's Behavioral Intention Model,"
Journal ofMarketing Research, 19 (November), 550561.
Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1982), "The Need
for Cognition," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 42 (1),116-131.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm For Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,"
Journal ofMarketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
Cohen, Joel B. and Ellen Golden (1972), "Informational
Social Influence and Product Evaluation," Journal of
Applied Psychology, 56 (February), 54-59.
Cox, Donald and Raymond A. Bauer (1964), "Self-Confidence and Persuasibility in Women," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 28 (Fall), 453-466.
Deutsch, Morton and Harold B. Gerard (1955), "A Study
of Normative and Informational Influence Upon Individual Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 51 (November), 629-636.
Eagly, Alice H. (1967), "Involvement As a Determinant of
Responses to Favorable and Unfavorable Information," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7
(November),1-15.
Epstein, Seymour (1979), "The Stability of Behavior: I. On
Predicting Most of the People Much of the Time,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37
(July),I097-1126.
- - (1980), "The Stability of Behavior: II. Implications
for Psychological Research," American Psychologist,
35 (September), 790-806.
Ford, Jeffry D. and Elwood Ellis (1980), "A Re-examination of Group Influence on Member Brand Preference," Journal ofMarketing Research, 17 (February),
125-132.
Fornell, Claes and David Larcker (1981), "Evaluating
Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing
Research, 18 (February), 39-50.
Janis, Irving L. (1954), "Personality Correlates of Persuasion," Journal ofPersonality, 22 (I), 504-518.
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1971), "Personality and Consumer
Behavior: A Review," Journal ofMarketing Research,
8 (November), 409-418.
- - and Thomas S. Robertson, eds. (1981), "Social Processes," in Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 317-328.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1961), "Processes of Opinion Change,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Spring), 57-78.
Lastovicka, John L. and Erich A. Joachimsthaler (1988),
"Improving the Detection of Personality-Behavior Relationships in Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 583-587.
Lennox, Richard D. and Raymond N. Wolfe (1984), "Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (6), 1349-1364.
McGuire, William J. (1968), "Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence," in Handbook of Personality
Theory and Research, eds. Edgar F. Borgatta and William W. Lambert, Chicago: Rand McNally, 11301187.
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
Miniard, Paul W. and Joel B. Cohen (1981), "An Examination of the Fishbein-Ajzen Behavioral Intentions
Model's Concepts and Measures," Journal 0/ Experimental and Social Psychology, 17 (July), 309-339.
Moschis, George P. (1976), "Social Comparison and Informal Group Influence," Journal o/Marketing Research,
13 (August), 237-244.
Moscovici, Serge (1985), "Social Influence and Conformity," in Handbook o/Social Psychology, Vol. 2, eds.
Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, New York: Random House, 347-412.
Park, C. Whan and Parker V. Lessig (1977), "Students and
Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference
Group Influence," Journal 0/ Consumer Research, 4
(September), 102-110.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Pincus, Steven and L.K. Waters (1977), "Informational Social Influence and Product Quality Judgments,"
Journal 0/Applied Psychology, 62 (5),615-619.
Price, Linda L., Lawrence F. Feick, and Robin H. Higie
(1987), "Preference Heterogeniety and Coorientation
as Determinants of Referent Influence in the Choice of
481
Service Providers," working paper, Department of
Marketing, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.
Ruekert, Robert W. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1984),
"Reliability and Validity of Alternative Measures of
Channel Member Satisfaction," Journal 0/ Marketing
Research, 21 (May), 226-233.
Sherif, Muzafer (1935), "A Study of Some Social Factors
in Perception," Archives o/Psychology, 27 (187), 60.
Stafford, James E. (1966), "Effects of Group Influence on
Consumer Brand Preferences," Journal 0/ Marketing
Research, 3 (February), 68-75.
- - and Benton A. Cocanougher (1977), "Reference
Group Theory," in Selected Aspects o/Consumer Behavior, Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 361-380.
Swap, Walter C. and Jeffrey Z. Rubin (1983), "Measurement ofInterpersonal Orientation," Journalo/Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1),208-219.
Witt, Robert E. and Grady D. Bruce (1972), "Group Influence and Brand Choice Congruence," Journal 0/ Marketing Research, 9 (November), 440-443.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal 0/ Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.