Being the Same and Different: A Model Explaining New Product Adoption
Yaron Timmor, Ph.D.
Academic Head of Business Studies
Raphael Recanati International School of Business
Head, Marketing Communication Program
Arison School of Business
Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC)
P.O.B. 167, Herzliya 46150
Tel: +972-9-960-2716, +972-3-643-8660
Fax: +972-9-956-8605, e-mail: timmor@idc.ac.il
http://www.idc.ac.il/lecturers/yaron.timor
Tal Katz-Navon, Ph.D.
Arison School of Business
Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC)
P.O.B. 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel
Tel/fax: +972-9-952-7349
e-mail: katzt@idc.ac.il
2
Being the Same and Different: A Model Explaining New Product Adoption
Abstract
The study suggests an alternative conceptualization for understanding adoption
behavior over time, based on Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer, 1991), which states
that social identity derives from a fundamental tension between human needs for validation
and similarity to others—the need for assimilation—and a countervailing need for
uniqueness and individuation—the need for differentiation. The present study proposes that
the effect of the size of the group of consumers who have already adopted a new product on
an individual consumer’s decision to adopt this product is contingent upon the consumer’s
two predispositions: the need for assimilation and the need for distinctiveness. Results of
empirical research suggested that differently perceived subgroup sizes fulfill consumers’ dual
needs for distinctiveness and assimilation differently. The influence of the adopters’ group
size on a consumer’s decision to adopt a new product varied among individuals with different
levels of needs for distinctiveness and assimilation: when need for distinctiveness was low,
the higher was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the
higher was the probability of adopting the product. When the need for distinctiveness was
high, the lower was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the
lower was the probability of adopting the product. In addition, when the need for
distinctiveness and assimilation were both high, the probability of adopting the product rose
as the perceived group size increased. Implications for product variation, marketing
communication, and target groups are discussed.
Key Words: New Product Adoption, Diffusion, Need for Distinctiveness, Assimilation,
Majority and Minority Influence
3
Introduction
Marketing studies are continually looking to understand consumer decisions to adopt
new products (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Grier & Deshpande, 2001; Sheth, Minttal & Newman,
1999). Studies of new product adoption have used two main approaches to explain
consumers’ adoption behavior. One approach uses aggregate models, which examine
consumers after the diffusion process of a new product is completed. These models are based
mainly on time and order of adoption along the product diffusion process (Bass, 1969;
Mahajan, Muller, & Srivastava, 1990). For example, these models classify consumers as
innovators who adopt a new product early in its lifecycle, early adopters, or early and late
majority (Rogers, 1976; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Some studies associate the first group
of adopters (i.e., innovators) with other personality traits such as being opinion leaders
(Midgley & Dowling, 1993; Summers, 1970), socially active, involved, and venturesome
(Danaher, Bruce, Hardie, & William, 2001; Gatignon & Robertson, 1985; Horski, 1990;
Labay & Kinnear, 1981; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). However, these studies characterize the
individuals in the various categories post ante, and do not explain why particular individuals
choose to adopt at a certain time or attempt to predict adoption behavior before the innovation
is introduced.
A second approach uses contingency models, which seek to explain and predict
individual adoption behaviors by exploring a consumer’s personal predispositions and how
these dispositions interact with specific situations (Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Migdley &
Dowling, 1993). The present study suggests an alternative conceptualization for
understanding adoption behavior. The model argues that the effect of the size of the group of
consumers who have already adopted a new product on the consumer’s decision to adopt this
product is contingent upon the consumer’s two predispositions: the need for assimilation and
the need for distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991; 1993).
4
Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT; Brewer, 1991) suggests that social identity is
activated in order to meet competing needs for differentiation of the self from others and
inclusion of the self into social collectives. Both differentiation and inclusion are powerful
social motives or drives. Social identity derives from a fundamental tension between the
human needs for validation and similarity to others—the need for assimilation—and a
countervailing need for uniqueness and individuation—the need for differentiation. These two
fundamental needs are independent, i.e., individuals need both a specific level of similarity to
and differentiation from others at a certain time. Optimal distinctiveness can be viewed as a
compromise between assimilation and differentiation from others (Brewer, 1991).
The study starts by reviewing the main findings of the influence of group size on
adoption behavior. It then discusses Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer 1991, 1993) and
the two predispositions of need for distinctiveness and need for assimilation. These needs’
moderating effects on the relationship between perceptions of group size and adoption
behavior are explained theoretically. Finally, the empirical research is presented, discussing
the theoretical and managerial implications.
The influence of perceived group size on adoption behavior
The proposed model is based on the assumption that all related individuals are part of
a group in regards to a specific content such as product, service, opinion or idea. Each
individual belongs either to the subgroup that has already adopted the new product or to the
subgroup of individuals that has not adopted it. Whichever group the individual belongs to is
the ‘ingroup’, while the other group is the ‘outgroup’. The numerical size of each subgroup
constantly changes as individuals move from one subgroup to the other.
Majority and minority subgroups constantly influence each other members’ behaviors
and attitudes (De Vries et al., 1996; Prislin, Limbert & Bauer, 2000; Tan, Wei, Whatson,
Clapper & McLean, 1998), mainly through group norms and social pressure (e.g., Asch 1955;
5
Bond & Smith 1996; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Kruglanski & Webster, 1991) and minority
dissent (Moscovici, 1985; 1976; Nemeth, 1986). When exposed to majority influence, a
minority is likely to experience substantial conformance pressure that causes it to focus on the
majority position. This induces compliance behavior (Mackie, 1987). In addition, studies
suggested that individuals tend to believe that the majority position implies correctness and
what is right, discounts uncertainty, or justifies decisions (Baker & Petty, 1994; Gardikiotis,
Martin & Hewstone 2005; Shuper & Sorrentino, 2004; Tan et al., 1998). This apparent
majority influence increases as the majority subgroup size increases (e.g., Asch, 1955;
Tanford & Penrod, 1984).
Consumer behavior studies have discussed the influence of group size on customers’
justification and adoption behavior (Burt, 1987; Mackie, 1987; Tan et al., 1998). The term
bandwagon effect (Leibenstein, 1950) describes a behavioral propensity to follow the crowd.
Applied to the adoption of new products, the bandwagon effect predicts that consumers are
more likely to adopt a new product if they perceive a higher level of adoption by other
consumers in the marketplace. In this context, the bandwagon effect may work through two
related processes: A purely cognitive process may produce inferences regarding the quality of
the product; if many consumers have adopted the product, it must be effective, good or
valuable. Emotional or social processes may also reduce the perceived risk of adoption; there
is less social risk in adopting a product if many other consumers have already adopted it. A
bandwagon effect exists when consumers derive a benefit from using a brand that is popular
(Hellofs & Jacobson, 1999). Becker (1991) noted that the use of some goods involves a social
aspect in that people use or consume the brand in public. The bandwagon effect predicts that
adoption likelihood increases as the perceived number of adopters in the relevant reference
group increases (Bass, 1969; Mahajan, Muller, & Srivastava, 1990, Rogers, 1983).
6
Individuals tend to compare their decisions and behaviors to others that serve as their
reference groups (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991). Reference theory (Stafford, 1971) refers to the
notion that comparison groups are used as frames of reference by individuals to determine
their own self status or relative position in a social system. Empirically, Asch’s (1955)
experiments of majority influence on individuals and the studies that followed used small
anonymous reference groups at a single time point (e.g., Clark & Maass, 1990; Prislin et al.,
2000: Tanford & Penrod, 1984). The individuals in these groups knew exactly how many
members belonged to which subgroup (majority vs. minority). However, very often a
commercial firm’s target groups tend to be large, with relatively weak relationships among
members. In large groups, consumers cannot accurately estimate the size of their reference
group that has adopted the product and whether this group of adopters constitutes a majority
or a minority. Consequently, consumers would base their behavior on their perceptions of the
group sizes. The following is hypothesized:
H1. In large groups, the perceived level of new product adoption
among member of the relevant reference group will have a positive
effect on an individual’s propensity to adopt a new product.
-------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
----------------------
Needs for distinctiveness and assimilation and group size
The question is who is moving from one subgroup (i.e., non-adopters) to the other
(i.e., adopters), and why.
7
Consider the following example: A customer enters the store looking for a pair of
pants. She looks at one bright red pair. Aiming to help her make her decision, the sales person
says, “I see that you have very good and unique taste. Most buyers don’t look at the red ones.
They prefer the blue ones.” She mumbles, “Mmm, I can understand why… I’ll think about it
and come again next week.” Then, another customer enters the store and looks at the red
pants. This time, the sales person hesitates to repeat her mistake and instead says, “It’s
interesting, most of my clients this week were interested in these red pants and many bought a
pair for themselves”. In response, the costumer also leaves the store but this time mumbles,
“Well, I’ll go to look for something that other people don’t have.” In the former situation, the
fact that only a minority of customers bought the product influenced the customer’s decision
not to buy the product, while in the latter situation the fact that the majority of customers
bought the product influenced the customer’s decision not to buy it.
Whether identification with a particular social group satisfies simultaneously both the
need for assimilation and the need for distinctiveness depends on this group’s level of
inclusiveness, i.e., the number of persons that can be classified as members of the same group.
There exists an optimal group size in which both needs are satisfied. This optimal level is a
function of the relative strengths of the opposing drives for assimilation and differentiation
(Brewer, 1993).
It is important to point out the differences between the needs for assimilation and
distinctiveness and other individual characteristics that have been discussed in the marketing
literature in relation to adoption behavior. Most studies examined factors such as product
knowledge (i.e., interest in the product, reading related magazines, social activity), reliance on
peers (i.e., seeking advice when purchasing new products), opinion leaders (i.e., giving advice
to others), and educational level (Bass, 1969; Gatignon & Robertson 1985; Mahajan et al.,
1990). Among these studies, conformity (Burt, 1987) and need for uniqueness (Snyder &
8
Frankin, 1977; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001) have more relevance to attitudes toward
majority and minority subgroups. Conformity refers to a change in beliefs or behaviors based
on real or perceived group pressures (Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2006). Need for
uniqueness refers to counter-conformity (Nail, 1986). These concepts differ from the needs
for assimilation and distinctiveness in the following manner: Conformity is measured on a
continuum from the conformers to the counter-conformers. Thus, an individual cannot be a
conformer and a counter-conformer simultaneously. Assimilation and distinctiveness on the
other hand are independent of each other, which means that an individual can have a high
need for assimilation and for distinctiveness at the same time (Brewer, 1993). In addition,
conformity is associated with loyalty; individuals show high conformity when they stick to
their subgroup whether it is the “small minority” or the “large majority”. Assimilation
however, is fulfilled within large groups while distinctiveness is fulfilled within small groups
(Brewer, 1991).
It is proposed that the two needs for distinctiveness and assimilation influence
individuals’ adoption behavior. For each new product, a consumer may belong either to the
subgroup of people who have already adopted the product or to the subgroup that has not yet
adopted it. The size of each of these two subgroups changes over time as more individuals
adopt the product. As the subgroups’ sizes change, so do their levels of inclusion, i.e., their
ability to satisfy consumers’ needs for assimilation and distinctiveness. Since each individual
has different levels of the two needs, different group sizes satisfy the needs of different
individuals.
The need for distinctiveness is concerned with personal identity that differentiates one
individual from others within a given social context. Larger subgroups are more inclusive
social units that de-personalize the self-concept that is “where I become We (Turner et al.,
1987, p. 50). As more and more people adopt a new product or idea along the diffusion
9
process, the adopters group size increases. Hence, as the subgroup size increases, it cannot
satisfy individuals’ need for distinctiveness and the individual is less able to satisfy his/her
need for distinctiveness. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H2: The individual’s need for distinctiveness moderates the
relationship between the individual perception of the size of the group
of people that already adopted the product and the individual’s decision
to adopt the product: the higher the individual’s need for distinctiveness
and the larger the perceived group size, the lower the probability that
the individual will adopt the new product.
Some individuals need to feel “the same” as the other group members (Brewer, 1991).
Along the diffusion process, when more and more group members adopt a new product or
idea, one perceives one’s behavior as similar to many others. The adopters’ group size
increases, and consequently, the individual is better able to satisfy his/her need for
assimilation. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H3: The individual’s need for assimilation moderates the relationship
between the individual perception of the size of the group of people
that already adopted the product and the individual decision to adopt
the product: the higher the need for assimilation and the larger the
perceived group size, the higher the probability that the individual will
adopt the new product.
We assert that consumers will adopt a new product when they perceive that a certain
number of consumers have already adopted the product and this number optimally satisfies
their dual needs to be assimilated in the ingroup and differentiated from the outgroup. An
10
individual with a high need for distinctiveness and low need for assimilation will adopt a
product when s/he perceives that only a small number of consumers have already adopted it.
In a group of potential customers, an individual with a high need to be distinct from others
and a low need for inclusiveness within the group behaves in a way that emphasizes that s/he
is different. To ensure that the adoption behavior is noticed, this individual will adopt the
product when s/he perceive that only a small number of customers have already adopted the
product, thus making her/his adoption conspicuous. By adopting a new product or idea when
others have yet to adopt it, one explicitly signifies that s/he is not like most other people. As
the number of adopters increases, the individual with a high need for distinctiveness is
expected to look again for something different and new. These individuals are not necessarily
“innovators” or “opinion leaders” (Gatignon & Robertson 1985; Rogers 1983) since they are
not necessarily adventurers or risk takers but rather seek to satisfy their high need to be
distinct from others.
An individual with a low need for distinctiveness and a high need for assimilation will
tend to adopt when s/he perceives that many consumers have already adopted the product, and
this large group satisfies her/his high need for inclusion.
Another option is that the individual’s needs for distinctiveness and assimilation are
both high. In this case, this consumer’ desire to be a part of the group is in conflict with
his/her aspiration to also be unique. In order to solve this internal conflict, the consumer may
wait and adopt the product only later in time, when the number of adopters increases and
satisfies his/her need for assimilation. Yet, at the same time, this consumer may look for the
product’s least popular style in order to satisfy his/her need for distinctiveness. For example,
such a person may buy the most popular brand of jeans in order to satisfy the high need for
assimilation, but may prefer the least purchased color to satisfy her/his high need for
distinctiveness.
11
Finally, an individual can have both a low need for assimilation as well as a low need
for distinctiveness. These individuals may be less susceptible to social influences and be
motivated more by personal preferences. These individuals are not necessarily laggards
(Rogers, 1983) since their personal needs may influence their decision to adopt the product at
any point along the diffusion process. Hence, it is proposed that the needs for assimilation and
distinctiveness moderate the relationship between perceived group size and adoption behavior
as follows:
H4: For individuals with a low need for distinctiveness, the higher their
need for assimilation and the larger they perceive the size of the group
of people that have already adopted the product to be, the higher the
probability that they will adopt the product.
H5: For individuals with a high need for distinctiveness, the lower their
need for assimilation and the larger they perceive the size of the group
of people that have already adopted the product, the lower the
probability that they will adopt the product.
Methods
Participants: A total of 198 students in an academic institute in Israel (80% response
rate) answered a questionnaire that was distributed to them at the end of class. The use of
students as participants is common in adoption research (for example, Hill et al., 1987; Lee &
Allaway, 2002; Lim & Dubinsky, 2004; Timmor & Rymon, 2007). Furthermore, Keen (1999)
found no difference in predicting consumer decisions regarding Internet use between students
and mall shopper samples. In terms of social group definition (Lickel et al., 2000), the
participants in this study belonged to the task and social categories because the students had
already studied together in the same study program for about two years and hence, had similar
goals and were also engaged in social relations and activities.
12
Procedure: First, a brainstorming meeting of the researchers and three students (who
were not part of the study sample) was held to identify new products. It was decided to use
three different products that were then relatively new to the market as examples in our
questionnaires: a cell phone with a camera, a memory stick, and a new fashion item (in the
latter, we instructed participants to “think of a new fashion item that has recently been
introduced, such as a shirt or pair of pants”). Technological and fashion items are commonly
used in studies of diffusion and adoption behavior (e.g., Mahajan et al., 1990; Miller,
McIntyre, & Mantrala, 1993; Tian et al., 2001). Three versions of the questionnaire were
composed, one for each of the three products. Each respondent was asked about only one of
the three product categories.
Next, a pilot study of the three questionnaire versions was conducted among 50
students. Results demonstrated that less than half (15% for the cell phone with camera, 33%
for the memory stick, and 48% for a new fashion item) had already adopted the products,
implying that the products were actually relatively new to the market. Finally, 240
questionnaires were randomly distributed (80 of each of the three different versions) in six
different classes.
Measures: Our measures are based on earlier studies when possible. In cases where
previous measurements were not available or did not fit the proposed hypotheses, specific
measurement tools were developed.
Need for assimilation (α = .72) and Need for distinctiveness (α = .83) were each
measured with four items based on Brewer (1991, 1993; see Appendix 1 for items). For both
scales, responses ranged on a 5-point Likert scale from 1–“do not agree at all,” to 5–“strongly
agree.”
Perceptions of group size: Participants’ perceptions of the size of the adopters group
were measured using the following item: “Think about the students who take the Marketing
13
Research class with you, how many of them do you estimate use a cell phone with a camera
(or memory stick or this fashion item)?” Responses ranged on a 5-point Likert scale from 1–
“nobody,” to 5–“everybody”.
Adoption of the new product was measured by the following item: “Do you have a cell
phone with a camera (or a memory stick or this fashion item)?”; responses were either yes or
no.
Opinion leader was measured using five items and Risk taking was measured using
two items (see Appendix) adapted from Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991; α = .72 and α = .76,
respectively). Responses ranged on a 5-point Likert scale from 1–“do not agree at all,” to 5–
“strongly agree.”
Control variables: (1) In order to control for necessity or utilization of the
product (Bearden & Etzel, 1982), we included perceptions of product necessity: “in
your opinion to what extent is the product essential?” Responses ranged on a 5-point
Likert scale from 1–“not at all,” to 5–“highly”. (2) We used a dummy variable for
product type.
Results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and correlations among all variables.
Correlations among need for distinctiveness, need for assimilation, and being a risk taker, and
an opinion leader revealed no significance (see Table 1).
=========================
Insert Table 1 about here
==========================
To test the three-factor structure of need for distinctiveness, need for assimilation, and
perceived group size, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the CALIS
procedure of SAS. The analyses were performed on variance-covariance matrices with
14
pairwise deletion of missing values. The CFA yielded an acceptable fit level (Hu & Bentler,
1999) of χ2(29, N = 190) = 44.43, p = .03, GFI = .95, CFI = .96, RMR = .08, and RMSEA =
.05. All the standardized factor loadings in the model were above .60 (the majority of the
loadings were between .60 and .70).
Next, in order to test the hypotheses, we applied a Logistic Regression Analysis to
examine the behavior of those who had and those who had not adopted the product. The
independent variables were perceived group size, need for assimilation, need for
distinctiveness, product type, and product necessity, the three two-way interactions of
assimilation and perceived group size, distinctiveness and perceived group size, and
assimilation and distinctiveness, and the three-way interaction of assimilation, distinctiveness
and perceived group size.
=========================
Insert Table 2 about here
==========================
Results demonstrated (Table 2) that the logistic regression was significant (p< .01), as
was the prediction validity of 82.4%. All the main effects and interactions were significant,
supporting the hypotheses. In order to graphically depict the three-way interaction, which
demonstrated the moderating effects of needs for distinctiveness and assimilation on the
relationships between perceived group size and adoption behavior, we followed the graphing
procedure outlined by Aiken and West (1991; see Figures 2 and 3).
=========================
Insert Figures 2 & 3 about here
==========================
The probability of adopting a new product by consumers with a low need for
distinctiveness increased the larger they perceived the group size of adopters to be and
the higher was their need for assimilation (Figure 2). The probability of adopting a
new product for consumers with a high need for distinctiveness decreased the larger
15
they perceived the group size of adopters to be and the lower their need for
assimilation was (Figure 3). In addition, the probability of adopting a new product by
consumers with both a high need for distinctiveness and a high need for assimilation
increased in tandem with an increase in the perceived group size.
Discussion
This study adds several tiers to the understanding of the theory and practice of
consumer behavior in adopting new products: The study proposes alternative motivations
derived from Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to explain and forecast customer behavior in the
context of new product adoption. This model follows the contingency approach, and theorizes
that the effect of group size on adoption is moderated by whether the particular group size
satisfies the person’s need for assimilation and for distinctiveness, and their interaction.
While most other studies of minority and majority influence used small groups mainly
in laboratory settings (for example, Asch, 1955; Prislin et al., 2000; Tanford & Penrod, 1984),
the present study was conducted within relatively large groups. When the group is large and
individual group members cannot correctly estimate the numeric value of the majority and the
minority subgroups, there is a perceived minimum group size that supports the individual’s
behavior rather than a numeric majority or minority. Since it is difficult for individuals to
estimate the exact group size, they consider whether the group is ‘big or small enough’ for
their particular needs.
The study results suggest that consumers’ perceived size of the adopters’ group had a
positive direct effect on the former’s behavior such that the higher the perceived group size
was, the more consumers were inclined to adopt the new product. This finding supports the
literature that emphasizes that a perceived large group of adopters may justify and reinforce
the decision to adopt; moreover, as the perceived adopter group size increases, so may the
16
pressure to join this group and follow its behavior (Gardikiotis et al., 2005; Mackie, 1987).
Another rationale for joining large groups as regards information technology might be the
‘network effect’. For example, the larger the group of consumers who have a cell phone, the
larger is my utility to communicate with a cell phone and hence I will tend to buy one. On the
other hand, if only a few people have a videophone, then I am unlikely to buy one.
Scholars in the field of diffusion of innovation have argued for the existence of
various individual characteristics that can influence adoption behavior (Danaher et al., 2001;
Gatingnon & Robertson, 1985; Migdley & Dowling, 1993). Our results suggest that the
individual’s needs for distinctiveness and assimilation co-exist simultaneously within the
same individual, and also influence the consumer’s decision to adopt new products. In
addition, the study results demonstrate that these two needs had a low and non significant
correlation with the concepts of opinion leaders and risk takers, which were previously
discussed in the marketing literature in regard to new product adoption.
In this study, the effect of group size on the consumer’s decision to adopt a new
product was contingent on the consumer’s optimal distinctiveness needs: The three-way
interaction of perceived group size and needs for distinctiveness and assimilation was
significant. The change in adoption behavior (from non-adopter to adopter) occurred as a
result of the interaction between the consumer’s perceptions of the adopters’ group size, and
his/her individual needs for distinctiveness and assimilation. The different perceived group
sizes fulfilled the needs for distinctiveness and assimilation differently and hence, impacted
the group’s ability to affect adoption behavior differently. It appears that while, in general, the
group’s size has a positive effect on individual consumer’s decision to adopt a new product
(Gardikiotis et al., 2005; Mackie, 1987; Rogers, 1983), its influence varies among individuals
with different levels of distinctiveness and assimilation needs.
17
The literature on majority influence on adoption behavior suggests that the majority
influences decisions through social pressure and the bandwagon effect, while also discounting
uncertainty, (Baker & Petty, 1994; Gardikiotis, Martin & Hewstone, 2005; Shuper &
Sorrentino, 2004; Tan et al., 1998). This study’s results suggest a qualitatively different
explanation for majority influence on consumers’ decisions to adopt new products — that the
need for assimilation is more fulfilled in large groups (Brewer, 1993). As the individual
perceives that more members have adopted the product, her/his need for assimilation is better
satisfied by being within this group. Indeed, our results demonstrated that when the
consumer’s need for distinctiveness was low and the need for assimilation was high, the
probability of adopting the product increased as the perceived group size increased, better
fulfilling this higher need for assimilation.
On the other hand, the need for distinctiveness is more fulfilled in small groups
(Brewer, 1993), where the individual perceives that fewer members have already adopted a
product. Our results show that when the consumer’s need for distinctiveness was high and the
need for assimilation was low, the probability of adopting the product decreased as the
perceived group size increased – no long fulfilling the higher need for distinctiveness. To
date, most studies on product adoption have focused on when an individual will adopt the
product, and little attention has been given to individuals who have already abandoned it (e.g.,
Mahajan et al., 1990; Midgley & Dowling 1993; Rogers, 1976). Theoretically, our model
suggests that abandonment behavior can occur when consumers have a high need for
distinctiveness and a low need for assimilation. They are most prone to abandon the product
and move to another one when they perceive that the group of adopters has grown too big to
fulfill their high need for distinctiveness.
When both the need for assimilation and need for distinctiveness were high and the
perceived number of adopters was high, it may be presupposed that consumers will be
18
conflicted internally as to whether to adopt the new product. On one hand, they might feel
encouraged to adopt the product because the perceived majority satisfies their high need for
assimilation. However, alternatively, they may feel disinclined to adopt the product due to the
fact that many people have already adopted it and their need for distinctiveness would thereby
not be satisfied. Our results demonstrate that the probability that consumers with both a high
need for assimilation and a high need for distinctiveness will adopt the product increased as
the perceived number of adopters increased. One potential explanation for this finding may be
the context of the present study. Since the three products used were relatively new, less than
fifty percent of the participants had already adopted them at the time of the study. Hence, the
perceived group size still had some ability to fulfill the need for distinctiveness but had
already reached a size that would fulfill the high need for assimilation. For example, the
consumer with a high need for distinctiveness and a high need for assimilation may adopt the
product because “I am not the only one who buys the product, yet not everyone has already
purchased it”. A high need for assimilation may encourage the consumer to buy a well-known
brand (e.g., Levi’s jeans) yet a high need for distinctiveness may push the customer to prefer a
less common color or design.
Finally, consumers with a low need for distinctiveness and a low need for assimilation
were just as likely to adopt the product even as the perceived group size increased. The term
self-monitoring refers to the extent to which individuals regulate their behaviors based on
external events such as the reactions of other people or based on internal factors such as their
own beliefs, attitudes, and interests (Snyder, 1974). Consumers with a low need for
distinctiveness and a low need for assimilation may be low self-monitors, hence, indifferent to
the external influence of others. These individuals’ decisions to adopt a new product may
involve internal factors such as individual taste and preferences. Another potential
19
explanation may be that these consumers are less socially involved; consequently, they are
less aware of and affected by the behaviors of others.
Future Research
First, the present study was conducted among business students. It would be
interesting to examine such a diffusion process in other population segments. Second, we
used three types of different socially visible products and received similar patterns of results
for the three of them. For further validation of the proposed model, we suggest testing it with
other types of products, for example, less visible products such as hygiene products. Third,
participants were surveyed in a specific period. While the relatively short period enabled us to
better control the process, a longer research period may enable deeper examination of the
diffusion process along time. Finally, the study was conducted among a Western and modern
population. Predispositions such as the needs for distinctiveness and assimilation may be
affected by cultural factors. Hence, it is worth replicating it across different cultures.
Implications and Conclusions
Researchers and practitioners are constantly dealing with the question of what affects
consumers’ decisions to purchase new products. This study suggests that potential buyers
deciding about purchasing a new product consider the number of consumers that have already
adopted the product ad hoc. In large target groups, what is important is the perceived number
of adopters rather than the real majority or minority actually adopting. Hence, consumers may
under- or over-estimate the number of adopters. Marketers can reduce disinformation by
communicating to potential customers (through advertising, PR activities) the actual number
of adopters.
Customers with a high need for distinctiveness may respond more positively and buy
products when only a small group of customers have adopted it whereas customers with a
high need for assimilation will adopt products when many other people are already using it.
20
Thus, although new customers may feel encouraged to adopt a particular product when more
and more people are buying it, persons with a high need for distinctiveness may react in the
opposite way, and avoid using the new product. Moreover, such customers may in fact
abandon the product and move to a different one. In order to retain these customers, it is
important to consider introducing to the market new variations of a product earlier in its life
cycle, or to constantly offer new variations of a product. In addition, for customers with a
high need for distinctiveness, there should be a further focus on product and image
differentiation. Variation can also be suitable for the customers with high needs for both
assimilation and distinctiveness. However, when dealing with customers with a high need for
assimilation, more concern should be given to the “being the same” factor, which emphasizes
that many have already adopted the product, revealing that others think and behave the same
way (i.e., product item, color).
The model can be more easily applied with customers’ clubs and B-to-B, since these
marketing platforms allow closer relations with clients and hence, make it easier to analyze
their needs and the subgroups’ composition. Nevertheless, in mass marketing and sporadic
contacts, also, the behavior of individual customers can be observed at the point of purchase,
and even during a sales talk between a seller and a potential buyer, the latter can signal that
s/he is more assimilation versus distinctiveness oriented.
21
References
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. London: Sage.
Abrams, D., Thomas, J., & Hogg, M.A. (1990). “Numeric Distinctiveness, Social
Identity and Gender Salience”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 29 (1), 87-92.
Alicke, M.D., & Largo, E. (1995). “The Role of the Self in the False Consensus
Effect”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 28-47.
Asch, S. E. (1955). “Opinions and Social Pressure”, Scientific American, 193, 31-5.
Baker, S. M., & Petty, R.E. (1994). “Majority and Minority Influence: Source Position
Imbalance as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67 1, 5-19.
Bass, F. M. (1969). “A New Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables”,
Management Science, 15 (5), 215-227.
Becker, G.S. (1991). “A Note on Restaurant Pricing and Other Examples of Social
Influences on Price”, Journal of Political Economy, 99, 1109-1116.
Bearden, W.O., & Etzel, M.J. (1982). “Reference Group Influence on Product and
Brand Purchase Decisions“, The Journal of Consumer Research, 9,183-194.
Bond, R. & Smith, P.B. (1996). “Culture and Conformity: A Meta-analysis of Studies
Using Asch's (1952b, 1956) Line Judgment Task”, Psychological Bulletin, 119, 11-137.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same
Time”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
Brewer, M. B. (1993). “The Role of Distinctiveness in Social Identity and Group
Behavior”, In M. A. Hogg and D. Abrams (Eds.), Group Motivation: Social Psychological
Perspectives, Pp. 1-15. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Burt, R. S. (1987). “Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion Versus Structural
Equivalence”, American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287-1335.
Clark, R.D. & Maass, A. (1990). “The Effects of Majority Size on Minority
Influence”, European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 99-117.
22
Danaher, P. J., Hardie, B.G.S. & William, P. P. (2001). “Marketing-Mix Variables and
the Diffusion of Successive Generations of Technological Innovation”, Journal of Marketing
Research, 38, 501-514.
De Vries, N. K., De Drew, C. K. W., Gordijn, E. & Schuurman, M. (1996), “Majority
and Minority Influence: A Dual Role Interpretation”, In W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.),
European Review of Social Psychology, 7, 145-172.
Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955), “A Study of Normative and Informational Social
Influence Upon Individual Judgment”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629636.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., & Miniard, P.W. (1995). Consumer Behavior. 8th Ed.
Orlando, Fl: The Dryden Press.
Gardikiotis, A., Martin, R. & Hewstone, M. (2005). “Group Consensus in Social
Influence: Type of Consensus Information as a Moderator of Majority and Minority
Influence”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (9), 1163-1174.
Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T.S. (1985). “A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion
Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 849-867.
Goldsmith, R.E. & Hofacker, C.F. (1991). “Measuring Consumer Innovativeness”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209-221.
Grier, S.A. & Deshpande, R. (2001). “Social Dimensions of Consumer
Distinctiveness: The Influence of Social Status on Group Identity and Advertising
Persuasion”, Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 216-224.
Hellofs, L.L & Jacobson, R. (1999). “Market Share and Customers’ Perceptions of
Quality: When can Firms Grow Their Way to Higher Versus Lower Quality?”, Journal of
Marketing, 63, 16-25.
Hill, T. D., Smith, & Mann, M. (1987). “Role of Efficacy Expectations in Predicting
the Decision to Use Advanced Technologies: The Case of Computers”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 307-313.
Hoch, S.J., & Loewenstein, G.F. (1991). “Time-inconsistent Preferences and Consumer
Self-control“, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 492-507.
23
Horsky, D. (1990), “The Effects of Income, Price and Information on the Diffusion of
New Consumer Durables”, Marketing Science, 9, 342-365.
Keen, C.N. (1999). “The Attributes Structure of Internet Shopping: What is Important
and What Tradeoffs are Possible Between Internet, Retail, and Catalog Formats?”,
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University, West Hills, C.A.
Kenrick, D.T., & Funder, D.C. (1988). “Profiting From Controversy: Lessons from the
Person-Situation Debate”, American Psychologist, 43 (January), 23-34.
Krueger, J., & Clement, R.W. (1994). “The Truly False Consensus Effect: An
Ineradicable and Egocentric Bias in Social Perception“, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 596-610.
Kruglanski, A.W. & Webster, D.M. (1991). “Group Members’ Reactions to Opinion
Deviates and Conformists at Varying Degrees of Proximity to Decision Deadline and
Environmental Noise”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 212-225.
Labay, D.G. & Kinnear, T.C. (1981). “Exploring the Consumer Decision Process in the
Adoption of Solar Energy Systems”, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 3, 271-278.
Lee, J. & Allaway, A. (2002). “Effects of Personal Control on Adoption of
Self-Service Technology Innovations”, The Journal of Services Marketing, 16, 553-573.
Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of
Consumers’ Demand“, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64, 183-207.
Lickel, B. Hamilaton, D.I., Wieczorkowska, G. Lewis, A. Sherman, S.J. & Uhles, A.N.
(2000). “Varieties of Groups and the Perception of Group Entitivity,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 223-245.
Lim, H. and Dubinsky, A.F. (2004). “Consumers’ Perceptions of e-Shopping
Characteristics: An Expectancy-Value Approach”, Journal of Services Marketing, 18, 500-13.
Mackie, D. M. (1987). “Systematic and Nonsystematic Processing of Majority and
Minority Persuasive Communications”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (1),
41-52.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E. & Srivastava, R.K. (1990). “Determination of Adopter
Categories by Using Innovation Diffusion Models”, Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 3750.
24
Midgley, D. F. & Dowling, G.R. (1993). “A Longitudinal Study of Product Form
Innovation: The Interaction between Predispositions and Social Messages”, Journal of
Consumer Research, 19, 611-625.
Miller, C.M., McIntyre, S.H., & Mantrala, M.K. (1993). “Toward Formalizing Fashion
Theory“, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 142-157.
Moscovici, S. (1976). “Social Influence and Social Change”, San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Moscovici, S. (1985). “Social Influence and Conformity”, In G. Lindzey and E.
Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed., Vol. 2, 347-415, New York, NY:
Random House.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). “Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence”,
Psychological Review, 93 (1), 23-32.
Prislin, R., Limbert, W.M. & Bauer, E. (2000), “From Majority to Minority and Vice
Versa: The Asymmetrical Effects of Losing and Gaining Majority Position Within a Group”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (3), 385-397.
Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations, New York,
NY: The Free Press.
Rogers, E.M. (1976). “New Product Adoption and Diffusion”, Journal of Consumer
Research, 2, 290-301.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd Edition, New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Sheth. N., Mittal, J.B., & Newman, B.I. (1999). Customer Behavior – Consumer
Behavior and Beyond. The Dryden Press.
Shuper, PA., & Sorrentino, R.M. (2004). “Minority versus Majority Influence and
Uncertainty Orientation: Processing Persuasive Messages on the Basis of Situational
Expectancies”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 144,127-147.
Smith, E. J. (1991). “Ethnic Identity Development: Towards the Development of a
Theory Within the Context of Majority/Minority Status”, Journal of Counseling and
Development, 70, 181-188.
25
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of Expressive Behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Snyder, C.R. & Fromkin, H.L. (1977). “Abnormality as a Positive Characteristic: The
Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness,” Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518-527.
Summers, J.O. (1970). “Generalized Change Agents and Innovativeness”, Journal of
Marketing Research, 8, 313-316.
Stafford, J.E. “Reference Theory as a Conceptual Framework for Consumers
Decisions” In R.L. Day, & T.E. Ness (Eds.), Marketing Models, Behavioral Science
Applications Intext Serials in Marketing, 1971, pp 249-65.
Tan, B.C., Kwok-Kee Wei, Y., Watson, R.T., Clapper, D.L., & McLean, E.R. (1998).
“Computer-Mediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an
Individualistic and a Collectivistic Culture”, Management Science, 44 (9), 1263-1278.
Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). “Social Influence Model: A formal Integration of
Research on Majority and Minority Influence”, Psychology Bulletin, 95, 189-225.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., & Hunter, G.L. (2001). “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness:
Scale Development and Validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50-66.
Timmor,Y. & Rymon, T. (2007). “To Do or Not To Do: The Dilemma of TechnologyBases Service Improvement,” Journal of Services Marketing, 21, 99-111.
Turner, J.C. Hogg, M. Oakes, P. Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). “Rediscovering
the Social Group: A self-Categorization Theory“, Oxford: Blackwell.
26
Table 1 – Means (Std) and Correlations
Means
(Std)
Need for Need for
Perceived
Assimila- Distinctive- Group
tion
ness
Size
Product
Opinion
Necessity Leader
Need for
Assimilation
2.33
(.69)
Need for
Distinctiveness
2.60
(.78)
-.08
Perceived Group
Size
1.73
(1.21)
-.01
-.01
Product Necessity
2.59
(1.12)
2.57
(.70)
2.39
(.93)
.031
-.013
.451*
-.026
.191
-.04
-.008
-.164
.048
-.007
.049
Opinion Leader
Risk taker
*
p < .05
.093
27
Table 2: Results of a Logistic Binominal Regression
Categorical Dependent Variable – Adopted vs. Did Not Adopt the Product
Model 1
(B Coefficient)
Model 2
(B Coefficient)
Model 3
(B Coefficient)
Product Type (1)
2.26**
1.92**
1.09*
Product Type (2)
.93**
1.37**
1.39*
Product necessity
.27**
-.39*
-.65*
Need for Assimilation
.84**
1.89**
Need for Distinctiveness
.42*
1.12*
-.49**
3.04*
Factors
Perceived Group Size
-.55†
Need for Assimilation x Need
for Distinctiveness
Need for Assimilation x
1.62*
Perception of Group Size
Need for Distinctiveness x
-1.34*
Perception of Group Size
Need for Assimilation x Need
.61*
for Distinctiveness x Perception
of Group Size
Model Statistics
-2 log likelihood
Chi square
Correct classification
** p<.01
* p<.05
†
p< .1
214.42
160.30
140.07
51.75
(3 d. f, p  .01)
100.31
(6 d. f, p . 01)
115.54
(10 d. f, p . 01)
69.3%
79.3%
82.4%
28
Figure 1: The Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
Need for
Assimilation
Need for
Distinctiveness
H3
Perceived
Group Size
H2
H5
H4
H1
Consumer Adoption
Behavior
29
Figure 2: Log of Purchase Probability on Perceived Group Size, Need for Assimilation,
and Low Need for Distinctiveness
2.4
High assimilation
2.2
2.0
Log of
Purchase 1.8
Probability
1.6
Low assimilation
1.4
1.2
1.0
Low
High
Perceived Group Size
30
Figure 3: Log of Purchase Probability on Perceived Group Size, Need for Assimilation,
and High Need for Distinctiveness
2.0
1.8
Log of
Purchase
Probability
1.6
High assimilation
1.4
1.2
1.0
Low assimilation
0.8
0.6
0.4
Low
High
Perceived Group Size
31
Appendix 1
Responses ranged on a 5-point Likert scale from 1–“do not agree at all,” to 5–“strongly
agree.”
Need for Assimilation
 It is important to me to behave like my friends
 I usually dress the same as my friends
 I usually listen to the same music that most of my friends listen to
 I usually go to the same movies that most of my friends go to
Need for Distinctiveness
 I think differently than most of my friends
 I tend to associate with people who are different and unique
 It is important to me to be different, unique, unconventional
 I think that I am different than most of my friends
Opinion Leader
 Other people ask for my recommendations before they buy a new music record
 Other people consider my opinion before they buy a fashion item
 People ask for my advice before they buy new products
 People whom I know rely on my recommendations when they buy new
products
 I often convince people to buy CDs with music I like
Risk taker
 I like to take risks
 I like to try new and different things