Intern. J.

of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Intern. J. of Research in Marketing

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j r e s m a r

Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation

Bert Vandecasteele a, Maggie Geuens b,c,
a
b
c

Lessius University College, Department of Business Studies, Korte Nieuwstraat 33, B-2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Tweekerkenstraat 2, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Department of Marketing, Gent, Belgium

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
First received in 8, July 2009 and was under
review for 3 and months
Area Editor: Jacob Goldenberg
Keywords:
Consumer innovativeness
Motivation
Scale development
Scale validation

a b s t r a c t
Existing consumer innovativeness scales ignore the multitude of motivation sources of buying innovations.
The objective of this paper is to incorporate different motivations into a multi-dimensional innovativeness
scale to better account for the consumerproduct relationship. An extensive literature review and ve studies
(with about 2600 respondents in total) indicate that four types of motivation underlie consumer
innovativeness: functional, hedonic, social, and cognitive. The proposed 20-item four-dimensional Motivated
Consumer Innovativeness (MCI) scale proves to be reliable and internally valid and does not seem to suffer
from social desirability bias. Moreover, the results of the studies indicate the predictive validity of every MCI
dimension. This new scale proves to measure more than existing consumer innovativeness scales; the
different MCI dimensions predict innovative purchase intentions better than both traditional and recently
developed innovativeness scales, and they disprove the general consensus that older people are always
signicantly less innovative than younger people. This MCI scale can serve as a tool for future research on
efciently and effectively segmenting and targeting (motivated innovative) consumers.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since the early seventies, several researchers have tried to predict
consumers' innovative buying behavior (i.e., the purchase of innovations or new products) using different scales intended to measure
innovativeness as a personality trait. However, most previous research
disregards the consumerproduct relationship (Gatignon & Robertson,
1985; Goldsmith & Flynn, 1992; Subramanian & Mittelstaedt, 1991);
there are few to no consumers who buy every new product of which
they are aware. In addition, Ostlund (1974) states that it is not solely
personality traits that are relevant but also the consumers' product
perceptions. Therefore, to understand consumer innovativeness well,
we must consider the interaction between the consumer and the
product itself. As a rst attempt, Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) launch
the idea of domain-specic innovativeness (i.e., innovativeness within a
specic product domain of interest). However, Roehrich, ValetteFlorence, and Ferrandi (2003) question its discriminant validity because
the scale resembles Laurent and Kapferer's (1985) product category
interest scale more strongly than an innovativeness scale (Roehrich,
1994). In addition, Goldsmith and Hofacker's (1991) scale is not a pure
personality scale because it is very product specic. Finally, Baumgartner

Corresponding author. Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business

Administration, Tweekerkenstraat 2, B-9000 Gent, Belgium. Tel.: + 32 9 264 3521.
E-mail addresses: Bert.Vandecasteele@telenet.be (B. Vandecasteele),
Maggie.Geuens@UGent.be (M. Geuens).
0167-8116/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.004

(2002, p. 287) argues that personality is best understood in terms of the

goals that people pursue in their lives [].
Building on this previous research, we would like to extend the
measurement of productconsumer interactions in consumer innovativeness, working beyond existing, mostly uni-dimensional scales
to construct a new consumer innovativeness scale that incorporates a
diversity of underlying goals and motivations associated with buying
an innovation. We base our research on Rogers (2003, p. 115), who
states that [w]e should increase our understanding of the motivations for adopting an innovation. Such why questions about adoption
have seldom been probed effectively. Huffman, Ratneshwar, and
Mick (2000) are also convinced that motivational goals provide us
with more powerful explanations for consumer behavior.
The main objective of the current paper is thus to develop and
validate a multi-motivational consumer innovativeness scale based
on general motivation and value taxonomies. Most of the current
innovativeness scales ignore the different sources of motivation. An
innovativeness scale that is more balanced in addressing potential
purchase motivations will go beyond existing scales of this type,
addressing the differences between consumers in terms of not only
their level of innovativeness but also their type of innovativeness. Five
studies in total are carried out to develop and validate the scale.
Additionally, in accordance with the trend toward ultra-short scales
(Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009; Rammstedt & John, 2007), special
attention is paid to developing a scale that is short and easy to use.
This is especially important because consumer innovativeness is often
only one of several measures in a questionnaire.

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

2. Phase 1: theoretical background

2.1. Consumer innovativeness
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971, p. 27) dene innovativeness as the
degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new
ideas than the average member of his social system. This denition
focuses on the level of innovativeness that is observable in behavior.
Marketing researchers refer to this type of innovativeness as realized
or actualized innovativeness. In the late 1970s, researchers started to
dene innovativeness as a personality trait. Midgley and Dowling
(1978) are the rst to point out that innovativeness is a hypothetical
construct and is by denition unobservable. They refer to it as innate
innovativeness and describe it as being situated on a higher, more
abstract level than realized innovativeness (Foxall, 1988, 1995;
Hirschman, 1980; Midgley & Dowling, 1993; Steenkamp, Hofstede,
& Wedel, 1999). Consumer innovativeness is part of that broader, more
general category of innate innovativeness and indicates innovative
consumer behavior. It can be conceptualized as the tendency to buy
new products in a particular product category soon after they appear in
the market and relatively earlier than most other consumers in the
market segment (Foxall, Goldsmith, & Brown, 1998, p. 41). Leavitt and
Walton (1975) are among the rst researchers to develop a self-report
measure of consumer innovativeness; others follow with different
kinds of scales (e.g., Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 1996; Goldsmith &
Hofacker, 1991; Hartman, Gehrt, & Watchravesringkan, 2004; Le
Louarn, 1997; Manning, Bearden, & Madden, 1995; Roehrich, 1994;
Tellis, Yin, & Bell, 2009; Venkatraman & Price, 1990). This innate
innovativeness should provide an explanatory basis for realized
innovativeness (Joseph & Vyas, 1984; Midgley & Dowling, 1978).
However, the issue of predictive validity is still problematic (e.g., Im,
Bayus, & Mason, 2003); some researchers (e.g., Citrin, Sprott, Silverman,
& Stem, 2000) are not able to detect signicant results, and although
others do nd a positive relationship, this correlation in some cases
accounts for 10 percent of behavioral variance at best (e.g., Cotte &
Wood, 2004; Roehrich et al., 2003). Moreover, these researchers do not
conceptualize consumer innovativeness in the same way. Several
researchers acknowledge the importance of different motivations or
sources of innovativeness (as Daghfous, Petrof, & Pons, 1999 observe as
well) but take into account two different types of motivations at most.
We hope that by including a wider spectrum of motivations, we will be
able to construct an innovativeness scale that performs better in terms
of both content validity and predictive validity. Toward this end, we
rst review the different motivational dimensions that have been
linked to consumer innovativeness in the past and describe how these
dimensions t into the categories of general goals, values, and
motivational frameworks.
2.2. Motivational dimensions in current innovativeness scales
First, many consumer innovativeness scales include a hedonic
dimension. One example often used to measure innovativeness (Chesson,
2002; Steenkamp et al., 1999) is Baumgartner and Steenkamp's (1996)
Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior scale. One of their subscales is
Exploratory Acquisition of Products, which refers to buying innovations
intended to stimulate the senses. Venkatraman and Price (1990) also
include a Sensory Innovativeness dimension in their concept of
innovativeness, and Roehrich (1994) denes his Hedonic Innovativeness
dimension as the drive to adopt innovations for hedonic reasons, such as
to enjoy the newness of the product.
Working from a different perspective, Hirschman (1984) and
Venkatraman (1991) point to innovative consumers who are attracted
to functional or useful new products. Babin, Darden, and Grifn (1994)
and Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003) propose a similar
distinction in emphasizing utilitarian reasons for buying products (as
opposed to hedonic or affective reasons).

309

Of course, products are not always purchased for their hedonic or

functional value alone. Consumers also want to impress others and raise
their social status (Brown and Venkatesh, 2005; Foxall et al., 1998).
Thus, innovativeness researchers stress the importance of the social or
symbolic component of consumer innovativeness (Roehrich, 2004;
Rogers, 2003; Venkatraman, 1991). Arnould (1989) and Fisher and Price
(1992) observe that social rewards and social differentiation may both
stimulate new product adoption. Simonson and Nowlis (2000) state
that the possession of innovations is a socially accepted way of making a
unique impression. Consumers build a certain identity through the
possession of these visible new products (Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001;
Tian & McKenzie, 2001).
Finally, Cognitive Innovativeness is a distinct dimension of innovativeness in the scale by Venkatraman and Price (1990) and is dened as
the desire for new experiences with the objective of stimulating the
mind (p. 294). Baumgartner and Steenkamp's (1996) Exploratory
Information-Seeking is also dened as providing mental stimulation,
although it is focused on information-seeking rather than on measuring
consumer innovativeness.
2.3. Conceptual positioning of each dimension within taxonomies of
general goals, values, and motivations
The four dimensions reected in the innovativeness literature also
correspond to more general theories of values, goals, and motivation
(cf., Table 1).
First, motivations are what energize and encourage goal-oriented
buying behavior (Rossiter & Percy, 1997), and these motivations are
activated by the goals that individuals pursue. Taking the taxonomy of
human goals of Ford and Nichols (1987) as a reference framework, we
can see that the hedonic dimension of consumer innovativeness ts
nicely with Ford and Nichols's affective goals, such as arousal and
happiness. Hedonically motivated innovative consumers buy innovations because they want to be excited and experience feelings of joy and
satisfaction. Cognitive innovativeness can be conceptualized as resulting
from Ford and Nichols's cognitive goals, including exploration,
understanding, and intellectual creativity. Cognitively motivated innovative consumers want to expand their own cognitive limits. Individuals
who score high on social motivation to innovate want to reach goals
referred to as self-assertive social relationship goals by Ford and Nichols
(1987). Goals that express individuality, self-determination, superiority,
and resource acquisition are important for these individuals because
they allow them to feel unique, special, or free and they can compare
each other in terms of winning, status, or success. Individuals with this
orientation obtain approval from others by buying innovations. Finally,
functional innovativeness seems to result from certain of Ford and
Nichols' task goals (e.g., mastery and management, which enable one to
reach one's goals in a proper, more efcient and qualitative way).
Functionally motivated innovative consumers buy innovations to
improve their performance or the organization of things, to increase
their productivity, and to avoid threatening circumstances.
Secondly, as far as values are concerned, the innovativeness
dimensions also mesh with existing value taxonomies. Based on
Schwartz's (1992) generally accepted value taxonomy, hedonic innovativeness can be conceptualized as stimulation because it focuses on
the stimulation of the senses. Next to stimulation, this hedonic
innovativeness dimension ts uniquely into the hedonism value, with
pleasure and joy as important elements. The social source of
innovativeness lies mainly in the goals related to power, with social
power and public image as important factors. Cognitive innovativeness
originates in the desire for stimulation (in this case, mental) and
achievement (e.g., being considered intelligent and capable). Unlike the
three previous dimensions of innovativeness, functional innovativeness
is not specically related to any of Schwartz's value dimensions.
However, the functional dimension and the other three dimensions of
innovativeness do emerge in Sweeney and Soutar (2001) who

310

Dimension denitions
Functional Self-reported consumer
innovativeness motivated by
the functional performance of
innovations and focuses on
task management and
accomplishment improvement
Hedonic
Self-reported consumer
innovativeness motivated by
affective or sensory stimulation
and gratication

Social

Self-reported consumer
innovativeness motivated by
the self-assertive social need
for differentiation

Cognitive

Self-reported consumer
innovativeness motivated by
the need for mental
stimulation

Previously reported dimensions of

innovativeness

Goals

Values

Motivations

- Functional value

Usefulness, handiness, compatibility,

- Negative reinforcer
(problem removal or avoidance) efciency, comfort, ease, quality,
reliability.
- Intrinsic motivations
(accomplishments)

- Affective goals (arousal,

happiness: being excited and
experiencing feelings of joy
and satisfaction)

- Stimulation (leading a varied

and exciting life)
- Hedonism (pleasure and
enjoying life)
- Emotional value

- Positive reinforcer
(sensory gratication)
- Intrinsic motivations
(experience stimulation)

Pleasure, fun, sensation, excitement,

enjoyment, tension, desire, an escape
from the daily round.

- Social relationship goals

(individuality, selfdetermination, superiority,
feeling unique, special, or free,
comparing individuals in
terms of winning, status,
success)
- Cognitive goals (exploration,
understanding, intellectual
creativity: expanding
cognitive limits through
knowledge and thought)

- Power (preserving public

image, social power)
- Social value

- Positive reinforcer
(social approval)
- Extrinsic motivations

Being different and unique, status,

standing, prestige, distinction, opinion
leadership, manipulation, visibility,
social rewards, trendiness, symbolism,
demonstrating one's success, sense of
belonging, image.

- Attraction to functional or useful products - Task goal (mastery and

management: improving
(Venkatraman, 1991)
performance, organizing,
- Utilitarianism (Voss et al., 2003)
being productive, avoiding
threats)
- Exploratory acquisition of products
(Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 1996)
- Sensory innovativeness
(Venkatraman & Price, 1990)
- Hedonic innovativeness
(Roehrich, 1994)
- Social innovativeness
(Roehrich, 1994)
- Making a unique impression
(Simonson & Nowlis, 2000)
- Identity-building (Tian et al., 2001),
social rewards, and differentiation
(Fisher & Price, 1992)
- Cognitive innovativeness
(mental stimulation)
(Venkatraman & Price, 1990)

- Achievement (intelligence, skill - Positive reinforcer

(intellectual stimulation)
and success)
- Intrinsic motivations
- Stimulation (mental)
(learning, knowing,
- Epistemic value
intellectuality)

Examples of motivation

Knowledge, information, intelligence,

wisdom, eagerness to learn, logical
thinking, insight and understanding,
reason, brainpower, mental
stimulation.

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

Table 1
Overview of the conceptual basis for the four Motivated Consumer Innovativeness dimensions.

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

distinguish between four main types of value related to consumption:

functional, emotional (hedonic), social, and epistemic value. Epistemic
value is dened as the perceived utility [] to arouse curiosity, provide
novelty, and/or satisfy a desire for knowledge (Sheth, Newman, &
Gross, 1991, p. 162) and thus recalls the cognitive dimension.
Finally, it is important to note that some motivation researchers
develop broad categories of consumer needs and motivations as well.
Rossiter and Percy (1997), for example, distinguish between negative
reinforcers (i.e., informational motives such as problem removal and
problem avoidance) and positive reinforcers (i.e., transformational
motives such as sensory gratication, intellectual stimulation, and social
approval). The former can be interpreted as functional motivations and
the latter as hedonic, cognitive, and social motivations. Additionally,
Vallerand (1997) acknowledges the existence of four types of motivations. Within his intrinsic motivation dimension, he highlights motivation toward accomplishments (similar to functional motivation in this
study), motivation to experience stimulation (similar to hedonic
motivation in this study), and motivation to know, which is related to
constructs such as learning goals and intellectualism (and resembles our
cognitive motivation dimension). In addition to emphasizing these
intrinsic dimensions, he also mentions extrinsic motivations (which
resemble our social motivations).
2.4. Conclusion
Despite all of this evidence in favor of different motivational
dimensions, the number of motivations included in current consumer
innovativeness scales is limited to two at most (e.g., Roehrich, 1994;
Venkatraman & Price, 1990). It is surprising that hardly any innovativeness scale has been developed that includes a wider array of potential
consumer motives. Indeed, a multi-dimensional consumer innovativeness scale is useful; it may have more predictive power for innovative
buying behavior because it takes into account a more complete range of
motivations for innovativeness. Moreover, such a scale may help
marketing researchers and managers to identify and reach motivated
innovative consumers, garnering interest in an innovative product or
service more effectively and efciently. It may also play a part in new
product development and marketing communications. The main
objective of the current research is to ll this gap, developing and
validate a multi-dimensional consumer innovativeness scale called
Motivated Consumer Innovativeness (MCI) that takes into account the
different motivations of innovative consumers. (1) Functionally Motivated Consumer Innovativeness (fMCI) refers to self-reported consumer
innovativeness motivated by the functional performance of innovations
and focuses on task management and accomplishment improvement;
(2) Hedonically Motivated Consumer Innovativeness (hMCI) is conceptualized as self-reported consumer innovativeness motivated by affective
or sensory stimulation and gratication; (3) Socially Motivated Consumer
Innovativeness (sMCI) is dened as self-reported consumer innovativeness motivated by the self-assertive social need for differentiation; and
(4) Cognitively Motivated Consumer Innovativeness (cMCI) refers to selfreported consumer innovativeness motivated by mental stimulation.
3. Phase 2: scale development and renement

311

the different existing consumer innovativeness scales (n = 77), (3) indepth interviews in which we probed reasons to buy innovations
using a convenience sample of 37 consumers who had recently
bought anything from a list of 502 innovations (n = 67), and (4) an
exploratory quantitative study requesting that 279 online respondents indicate to what extent 135 human motives (Chulef, Read, &
Walsh, 2001) affected their purchase of innovative products (n = 42).
The relevant motivational items all correspond to one of the four a
priori dened dimensions.1 Thus, the importance of each of the four
dimensions is conrmed, and there are no indications that an
additional dimension should be taken into account.
As Hardesty and Bearden (2004) and Rossiter (2002) stress the
importance of expert judgments to correctly dene a construct, the
authors, ve experts (Marketing Department members), and six nonstudent consumer judges critically evaluate all items. The judges are
asked to pay attention to content validity, representativeness, dimensionality, comprehensibility, and unambiguousness. If two judges
encounter an issue in assigning an item to a particular dimension, or
when two or more judges deem an item not to be valid or representative,
it is deleted. Some items are reworded to address the judges' comments.
This procedure yields 90 remaining items, of which 24 are functional, 24
are hedonic, 22 are social, and 20 are cognitive. Examples of deleted
items are Buying innovations can make my day (no clear dimension), I
love brand switching (not necessarily connected with consumer
innovativeness), and I love experimenting (vague).
3.2. Study 1: pilot study
This quantitative pilot study is intended to assess some basic
psychometric properties of the 90-item MCI scale and to purify the
scale, limiting it to a more manageable number of items.
3.2.1. Respondents, procedure, and measures
We recruit 452 respondents (Mage = 36, SD = 15; 54% women) for
an online survey via 35 web forums. The questionnaire includes the 90
MCI items, which are randomly rotated. To be able to establish
convergent validity, we include Roehrich's (1994) 11-item Hedonic
and Social Consumer Innovativeness scale for half of the respondents
(alpha = .866 and .887, respectively). We expect a signicantly higher
correlation between the respective hedonic and social components of
Roehrich's (1994) scale and ours than between the other dimensions.
The Exploratory Acquisition of Products (10 items) variety-seeking
subscale developed by Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996)
(alpha = .863) and the 12-item Extraversion scale developed by
Eysenck, Eysenck, and Barrett (1985) (alpha = .901) are added for the
other half of the respondents to establish discriminant validity. We
expect no correlation or a relatively low correlation to exist between
these two scales and the MCI scale because the constructs of varietyseeking and extraversion are conceptually distinct (e.g., Weijters,
Geuens, & Roehrich, 2004). All items are measured using a ve-point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Finally, the
respondents answer socio-demographic questions.

3.1. Item generation and content validation

3.2.2. MCI results

Principal component analysis (promax rotation) yields 14 factors
with eigenvalues exceeding 1. After this procedure and an identical
analysis focusing on the theorized four factors, only items that load
higher than .50 on their focal factor and not higher than .30 on another
in one of the analyses are retained (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
1998). A second analysis of the 57 items that are left points to four
factors (as does the scree plot) and yields 43 items. The Cronbach's
alphas of the four dimensions (alphasMCI = .929; alphafMCI = .907;
alphahMCI = .928; alphacMCI = .902) are comfortably high. The four

A total set of 254 items is constructed. This item pool originates

from the (1) review of the literature on innovativeness (n = 68), (2)

1
The detailed results of these exploratory studies are available from the authors
upon request. Table 1 offers some examples of the results of these studies.

To ensure that (1) all motivational dimensions of consumer

innovativeness are covered and (2) only relevant aspects are taken into
account, a review of the literature is combined with exploratory research.
This process allows us to be condent that we are beginning with the
appropriate items. Then, in studies 1 to 3, the scale is tested and rened to
create a short, practical, and easy to use scale.

312

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

factors account for 57.7% of the total variance, and each factor explains
at least 5.4% of the total variance, fullling the minimal requirements
presented by Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma (2003). All item-tototal correlations exceed .50, and the inter-item correlations of each
dimension exceed .30.
On the basis of a conrmatory factor analysis (with SAS CALIS
procedure), we delete the items with factor loadings below .60 and
squared multiple correlations below .50. Three items that have squared
multiple correlations between .47 and .50 are retained because of their
contribution to the content of the scale (Rossiter, 2002). These are the
only scale items that employ the phrases easier to use and convenient
size (fMCI) and desire (hMCI). A conrmatory factor analysis of the
remaining 30 items indicates an acceptable overall t (TLI= .952,
CFI = .952, RMSEA = .047). Additionally, the factors are shown to
possess high internal validity and sufcient discriminant validity.
Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) are
satisfactory for sMCI (CR = .93, AVE= .64), fMCI (CR = .89, AVE= .53),
hMCI (CR = .92, AVE = .55), and cMCI (CR = .91, AVE = .58). The
average variance extracted is always larger than the squared correlations between the factors (cf., Fornell & Larcker, 1981), proving the
discriminant validity of the dimensions. Moreover, this four-factor
correlated model proves to be the best model (2 = 731.1, df= 399,
BIC = 1635.9); it is superior to null (2 = 7318.2, df= 435), one-factor
(2 = 2933.6, df = 405, BIC = 531.0), and four-factor uncorrelated
(2 = 1220.2, df= 405, BIC = 1182.4) models. We can conclude that
this MCI scale and its dimensions have good internal consistency.

Table 2
20-item Motivated Consumer Innovativeness (MCI) scale.
Factor

Item

Social

I love to use innovations that impress others.

I like to own a new product that distinguishes me from others who do
not own this new product.
I prefer to try new products with which I can present myself to my
friends and neighbors.
I like to outdo others, and I prefer to do this by buying new products
which my friends do not have.
I deliberately buy novelties that are visible to others and which
command respect from others.
Functional If a new time-saving product is launched, I will buy it right away.
If a new product gives me more comfort than my current product, I
would not hesitate to buy it.
If an innovation is more functional, then I usually buy it.
If I discover a new product in a more convenient size, I am very
inclined to buy this.
If a new product makes my work easier, then this new product is a
must for me.
Hedonic
Using novelties gives me a sense of personal enjoyment.
It gives me a good feeling to acquire new products.
Innovations make my life exciting and stimulating.
Acquiring an innovation makes me happier.
The discovery of novelties makes me playful and cheerful.
Cognitive I mostly buy those innovations that satisfy my analytical mind.
I nd innovations that need a lot of thinking intellectually challenging
and therefore I buy them instantly.
I often buy new products that make me think logically.
I often buy innovative products that challenge the strengths and
weaknesses of my intellectual skills.
I am an intellectual thinker who buys new products because they set
my brain to work.

3.2.3. Convergent and discriminant validity results

sMCI appears to be strongly correlated with Roehrich's social
dimension (r = .790), and hMCI is strongly correlated with Roehrich's
hedonic dimension (r = .727). As expected, weaker correlations
emerge between fMCI and Roehrich's innovativeness scale
(r = .509) and between cMCI and Roehrich's scale (r = .629). Further,
Exploratory Acquisition of Products is weakly but signicantly
correlated with all of MCI's subscales (r = between .166, p = .019 for
fMCI and .242, p = .001 for cMCI) except sMCI (r = .104, p = .152).
Finally, the MCI dimensions are never signicantly correlated with
Extraversion.

recommended criteria well. The four-factor correlated model always

outperforms the null model, a one-factor model, and a four-factor
uncorrelated model.
As further proof that reducing the MCI scale from 90 items to the
nal 20 items does not lead us to exclude an important part of the
construct, we correlate the dimensions of the 90-item MCI and 20item MCI from study 1. This results in correlations as high as .90 (for
fMCI and hMCI), .91 (for cMCI), and .94 (for sMCI).

3.3. Study 2: renement study

3.4. Study 3: testretest reliability and socially desirability bias

The main objective of this study is to conrm the results of the

pilot study and further rene the 30-item scale.

Because the MCI scale is a personality scale, the concepts measured

should be stable over time. Moreover, the respondents should not
respond to the scale items in a socially desirable manner.
All respondents from the previous study who volunteered to
participate in future surveys are invited through e-mail to ll out a
second questionnaire. A total of 111 students (32% response rate; time
lag 3660 days; Mage = 21, SD = 2; 67% women) take part in this
follow-up study. The retest questionnaire consists of the nal MCI
items and a shortened version of the MarloweCrowne Social
Desirability scale the 11-item scale by Ballard (1992, alpha = .605).
A conrmatory factor analysis of the retest data yields results similar
to those of previous analyses (cf., Table 3). Testretest correlations for
MCI's four dimensions range from .56 (fMCI), over .68 (sMCI) and .72
(hMCI) to .75 (cMCI). According to the social desirability tests, neither
dimension shows a signicant correlation with the Social Desirability
scale (r between .16 for sMCI and .03 for hMCI).

3.3.1. Respondents, procedure, and measures

Students (n = 349, Mage = 21, SD = 2; 63% women) from the
departments of Economics and Business Administration (36%) and
Political and Social Sciences (63%) at a Western European university
are recruited through the websites of their respective departments.
The online survey includes the 30 MCI items in addition to sociodemographic questions (gender, age, and undergraduate study).
3.3.2. Results
A conrmatory factor analysis of the 30 MCI items offers results
that are similar to those of previous analyses. On the basis of the
conrmatory factor analysis results, we remove the items with low
factor loadings (ve items), relatively low SMC (three items), and
relatively high modication indices (two items), yielding 20 items.
Again, the t indices (TLI = .977, CFI = .980, RMSEA = .033) indicate a
good model t. The four-factor correlated model (2 = 224.7, df = 164,
BIC = 735.6) outperforms the other models (2 N 452.4, df = 190
170, BIC N 543.0). The nal scale consists of 20 items (cf., Table 2).
An overview of the performance of the nal 20-item MCI scale
across previous, current, and future studies can be found in Table 3.
These results conrm the internal consistency of the MCI dimensions,
and the conrmatory factor analysis t statistics exceed the

4. Phase 3: MCI's predictive validity

An innovativeness scale must also predict innovative consumer
behavior in everyday life. In the MCI scale, there should be a unique
relationship between each motivation dimension and the buying
intentions or buying behavior of consumers seeking innovations that
satisfy these specic functional, hedonic, social, or cognitive needs
(predictive validity). Additionally, the MCI scale should predict

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

313

Table 3
Performance of 20-item MCI scale across ve samples.

Participants
Sample size
Number of items
Scale mean MCI
- cMCI
- sMCI
- hMCI
- fMCI
Standard deviation MCI
- cMCI
- sMCI
- hMCI
- fMCI
Internal consistency
- Lowest corrected item-total correlation (N.50)
- cMCI
- sMCI
- hMCI
- fMCI
- Average inter-item correlation (N.3)
- cMCI
- sMCI
- hMCI
- fMCI
- Composite reliability (N.80)
- cMCI
- sMCI
- hMCI
- fMCI
- Average variance extracted (N.50)
- cMCI
- sMCI
- hMCI
- fMCI
Factor analyses
- Percentage of total variance explained with
four factors (N50)
- Minimal explanation of each factor (N5)
- CFA t TLI (N.90)
- CFA t CFI (N.95)
- CFA t RMSEA (b.06)
- CFA lowest standardized loading MCI (N.60)
Comparison four-factor correlated model with
(df = 164)
- Null model (df = 190)
- One-factor model (df = 170)
- Four-factor uncorrelated model (df = 170)

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Study 4

Study 5

General population
452
90
Likert 15

University students
349
30
Likert 15

University students
111
20
Likert 15

Representative population
329
20
Likert 17

General population
826
20
Likert 15

2.47
1.96
2.74
3.01

2.43
2.05
3.22
2.89

2.43
2.01
3.19
2.89

3.81
2.74
4.27
4.37

2.54
1.98
2.86
3.25

.76
.84
.86
.77

.68
.79
.75
.73

.72
.74
.73
.76

1.02
1.20
.99
1.01

.77
.84
.87
.82

.65
.58
.67
.61

.68
.69
.54
.54

.69
.61
.57
.65

.70
.68
.67
.79

.68
.75
.67
.62

.58
.65
.58
.52

.59
.63
.46
.44

.63
.52
.61
.55

.62
.73
.59
.58

.59
.67
.58
.51

.88
.91
.87
.85

.88
.89
.81
.80

.90
.85
.88
.86

.89
.93
.88
.88

.88
.91
.87
.84

.60
.67
.58
.54

.59
.63
.47
.44

.63
.52
.60
.55

.62
.73
.59
.59

.59
.67
.58
.51

68.1

63.4

67.2

71.4

67.4

7.2
.972
.976
.041
.70

7.9
.977
.980
.033
.61

7.7
.934
.943
.059
.66

6.8
.960
.965
.053
.71

6.2
.980
.982
.034
.68

2 = 265.0
BIC = 707.8
2 = 4344.5
2 = 1789.7
BIC = 790.3
2 = 650.6
BIC = 357.9

2 = 224.7
BIC = 735.6
2 = 3214.1
2 = 1589.9
BIC = 594.6
2 = 452.4
BIC = 543.0

2 = 228.1
BIC = 544.2
2 = 1311.4
2 = 651.6
BIC = 149.0
2 = 323.6
BIC = 477.0

2 = 311.7
BIC = 634.3
2 = 4350.1
2 = 1706.8
BIC = 726.2
2 = 737.7
BIC = 242.9

2 = 320.1
BIC = 787.5
2 = 9311.8
2 = 2797.5
BIC = 1655.7
2 = 1452.8
BIC = 310.9

general innovation buying behavior better than existing scales. We

verify that these requirements are met using ctitious innovations
(study 4) and a list of existing innovations selected from different
product categories (study 5).

(Mcognitive motivation = 5.8 versus Mother b 4.7, F(3,37) = 12.5, p b .001;

Mhedonic motivation = 5.8 versus Mother b 4.3, F(3,37) = 61.6, p b .001;
Mfunctional motivation = 6.5 versus Mother b 4.0, F(3,37) = 79.0, p b .001;
and Msocial motivation = 6.1 versus Mother b 5.4, F(3,37) = 67.5, p b .001).

4.1. Study 4: predictive validity study with ctitious innovations

4.1.2. Respondents, procedure, and measures

Four hundred and seven members of an opt-in consumer panel
participate in the predictive validity survey. The questionnaire begins by
addressing general interest in mobile phones (Beatty & Talpade, 1994)
and mobile phone buying frequency. Next, a description of the four
innovative option packs is presented, followed by questions on
awareness (Have you heard from this product before? with three
answer choices yes/no/unsure; unsure is considered equivalent
to no following Manning et al., 1995). The questions that follow are

4.1.1. Pretest
Four different non-existent innovation packs for mobile phones
are created, each representing one of the four motivation dimensions.
Table 4 shows the descriptions as presented to the respondents.
A pretest with 40 respondents (Mage = 29, SD = 8; 45% women)
shows that each innovation scores signicantly higher on the
intended motivational dimension than on the other dimensions

314

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

Table 4
Overview of the description of the four mobile phone options with different motivation
manipulations (study 4).
Dimension Description
Functional

Hedonic

Social

Cognitive

This option pack consists of the following options:

- No adapter needed with the Wire Free technology. Your mobile
phone battery is constantly charged by three alternative energy
sources: light energy with the built-in solar cells, motion energy from
your daily movements, and energy from radio waves in the air.
- With the Destruction Proof option, your mobile phone is optimally
protected with invisible bumpers that prevent it from falling in 1000
pieces when it hits the oor. Moreover, this mobile phone is selfcleaning and completely waterproof, which makes this phone much
more durable than its predecessors.
This option pack consists of the following options:
- The built-in Happy Me function positively stimulates you every
day. This mobile phone can feel the user's mood through sensors.
Based on this, you will get specially adapted amusing messages like
jokes and cartoons on your screen. With this option, you can spend
your day cheerful and good humored.
- Thanks to the Rise & Shine awakening programs, your mobile
phone awakes you in a contented way. You get up with a good feeling
as the light intensity of your phone gradually increases. Together with
a set of stimulating awakening sounds you will get up with a happy
feeling. This option will keep you cheerful and good humored during
the day.
This option pack consists of the following options:
- With the Be U(nique) technique, you can make a deep impression
on your friends. This eye-catching mobile phone can endlessly adapt
itself depending on who is in your neighborhood. Your phone will
always be unique and different: the looks change in the presence of
others, so nobody will have the same model.
- With the Shout Proud option, you can show programmed
messages to your neighborhood with the message line on the back of
this mobile phone. Impress friends, acquaintances, family, or strangers
with unexpected and original messages.
This option pack consists of the following options:
- Thanks to the Point & Learn option, you get to know everything about
objects you photograph with your mobile phone. For example, do you
want to know more about a specic product, then you only have to take a
picture of the bar code or the advertisement. You will instantly get more
information about the ingredients, product content, and history of the
brand. This option gives you also more information about monuments,
buildings, and other places, home and abroad.
- Brain Train stimulates your mind and trains your memory and
brain thanks to the added brain exercises: do IQ tests, concentration
and number exercises, discover the possibilities of your brain with
memory tests, and learn new languages with interactive language
exercises, wherever you are. With this mobile phone option, next to
improving your memory and brain functions, you can also optimize
your concentration.

related to product trials (Have you bought this product before? with
identical answer choices), attitude towards the product (using a sevenpoint semantic differential: goodbad, favorableunfavorable, pleasantunpleasant), and buying intention (Next time I buy a new mobile
phone, I want this option pack included, with answers to be provided
according to a seven-point disagreeagree Likert scale). The second part
of the survey presents the 16-item Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness scale by Venkatraman and Price (1990), the 10-item Global
Consumer Innovativeness scale by Tellis et al. (2009), and the 20-item
MCI scale with an instruction check as an extra item intended to identify
participants who have not read the items carefully (Oppenheimer,
Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009). Finally, the respondents score each
innovative option pack using a seven-point Likert scale with a
description of the four possible innovative motivations as a manipulation check. The survey closes with the socio-demographic questions. Of
the 407 respondents, 78 (i.e., 19%) fail to follow instructions (this
percentage is in line with the results by Oppenheimer et al., 2009 who
report failure rates between 7% and 46% dependent on the respondents'
motivations). Three hundred twenty-nine usable questionnaires remain. The corresponding respondents are representative of the

population in terms of gender (51% women), age (1825 years: 15%;

2635 years: 27%; 3645 years: 28%; 4660 years: 29%), education (39%
had completed their higher education), professional status (49%
employed full-time), and family situation (40% living with a partner
and child(ren)).

4.1.3. Results
The innovation motivation manipulation is successful; all four
innovation packs score signicantly higher on intended motivated
innovativeness than on the other motivations (Mcognitive motivation =5.2
versus Mother b 4.5; Mhedonic motivation = 5.0 versus M other b 4.2;
Mfunctional motivation = 5.9 versus Mother b 4.2; Msocial motivation = 5.1
versus Mother b 4.6; all p b .001). Because no one could actually have
bought these made-up innovations, we delete those respondents who
think that they are familiar with (awareness between 1.5% and 4.3%) or
claim to have bought (trial between 0.6% and 1.5%) one of them.
Multiple regression analyses taking product attitudes (alpha's between
.952 and .973) and buying intentions as the dependent variables for the
four innovative mobile phones and the four MCI dimensions as the
independent variables (controlling for product category interest, buying
frequency, and scores for product attitudes and buying intentions for the
other innovative packs) indicate predictive validity in seven of the eight
cases. Table 5 shows that the only variable that is not predicted by its
predetermined dimension is the intention measure for the hedonic
innovation.
After conducting this predictive analysis, we compare the
predictive strength of the MCI scale with two existing innovativeness
scales: (1) the 16-item Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness scale by
Venkatraman and Price (1990), a traditional innovativeness scale that
uses cognitive (alpha = .730) and sensory (alpha = .777) sub-dimensions to measure engaging in new experiences with the objective of
stimulating the senses [ and] the mind (p. 293); and (2) the
recently developed 10-item Global Consumer Innovativeness scale by
Tellis et al. (2009), which measures the propensity to adopt new
products (p. 1) using three factors: openness for innovations
(including stimulus variation, opinion leadership, and risk-taking;
alpha = .617), change-seeking (including novelty-seeking, varietyseeking, and habituation, which has an inverse relationship to
innovativeness; alpha = .448), and Reluctance (including effort,
nostalgia, suspicion, and frugality, all of which also have inverse
relationships to innovativeness; alpha = .528). The nal innovativeness scale is the MCI scale consisting of the four predetermined factors

Table 5
Unstandardized coefcients of regression analyses (standardized coefcients in
brackets) with attitude toward the product and buying intention scores for mobile
phone innovations as the dependent variables and the four MCI dimensions as the
independent variables (study 4).
Type of
innovation

Dependent
variable

fMCI

hMCI

sMCI

cMCI

Functional

Attitude

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS
.336
(.238)***
.260
(.201)***
.205
(.173)**
NS

NS
NS

Hedonic

Attitude

.150
(.149)*
.344
(.314)***
NS

Social

Buying intention
Attitude

NS
NS

.180
(.116)*
NS
NS

Buying intention

NS

NS

Attitude

NS

NS

Buying intention

NS

NS

Buying intention

Cognitive

NS
.238
(.171)**
.242
(.175)**

NS = not signicant, *p b .05, **p b .01, ***p b .001, p-values two-sided; gures in bold
are the expected signicant coefcients.

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

(with alphas between .875 and .930). Table 6 shows the explanatory
value of the MCI scale in comparison with that of the other two
innovativeness scales. Using Williams's t-test for non-independent
correlations based on Steiger (1980), we achieve results indicating
that MCI explains a signicantly larger part of the variance than the
other innovativeness scales in 16 of the 20 cases, whereas the results
for the other four cases are as expected (i.e., we achieve a higher R2
with the MCI model than with the other models).
4.2. Study 5: predictive validity study with existing innovations
We select 96 innovations (a well-balanced mix of new FMCGs,
durables, and services) from a list of 502 innovations that we had drawn
up during the exploratory research phase and after an extensive search
for new products/services conducted in several venues: (a) supermarkets and shops; (b) websites for national brands in a variety of
product categories; and (c) advertisements for these products and
services in magazines. Products or services are removed from the list of
502 innovations if they do not meet the conditions described in the
denition of an innovation (e.g., products that are no longer perceived as
innovative because a majority of consumers use them), cannot be used
or purchased by everybody (e.g., innovations within the category of
female hygiene products and products specically used by individuals of
a certain age), or are not affordable for everybody (e.g., luxury products).
To determine which motivation each of the existing innovations
inspires, a pretest is conducted.
4.2.1. Pretest
The 96 innovations are randomly divided into three groups of 62
respondents (Mage = 32, SD= 9; 44% women) in total. The respondents
are staff members of the Economics and Business Departments of two
Western European higher education institutions. They score each
product according to the four motivation dimensions (e.g., One
would purchase this new product for functional reasons) using a
seven-point Likert scale (1= totally disagree, 7 = totally agree) based
on a denition of each motivation. The innovations that score
signicantly higher on one motivation dimension than the other three
dimensions (i.e., prototypical innovations) are selected for use in the
predictive validity survey. This includes seven functional, six hedonic,
two social, and one cognitive innovations.
4.2.2. Respondents, procedure, and measures
Predictive validity is tested using online self-report surveys
completed by consumers who are recruited through an announcement in Metro, a free Belgian newspaper. Five gift boxes worth 250 in
total are offered to respondents as an incentive. The recruitment
efforts result in 1101 completed surveys that take on average 20 min
to complete (Mage = 32, SD = 12; 58% women).

315

The questionnaire refers to the 16 selected, existing innovations. A

description of each innovation is accompanied by a picture of the
product and a link to a website for the innovation. The respondents
answer a buying intention question for each innovation using an 11point scale indicating the chances, from 0 to 10, that the respondent
will buy the product within the next 12 months, making allowances
for external factors such as budget restraints and responsibility. Some
ller items are included next, followed by the 20-item MCI scale with
an instruction check as an extra item (Oppenheimer et al., 2009) and
some socio-demographic questions.
4.2.3. Results
First, the instructional manipulation item is analyzed to exclude
those respondents who do not read the items carefully enough. Twentyve percent of all respondents are omitted as a result, leaving 826
respondents. A conrmatory factor analysis of the 20 items using the
four-factor correlated model shows t comparable to that achieved in
previous studies (cf., Table 3). The dependent variables of the multiple
regression analyses are mean intentions to buy the prototypical
functional, hedonic, social, and cognitive innovations. Taking the four
MCI dimensions as independent variables, Table 7 shows that all buying
intentions are predicted by the expected MCI dimensions. First, buying
intention for the prototypical functional products is predicted by just
one dimension: fMCI. Secondly, buying intention for prototypical
hedonic products is predicted by hMCI but also by fMCI. Thirdly,
prototypical social product buying intention is only signicantly
explained by sMCI. Finally, as expected, buying intention for the
prototypical product offering cognitive innovation is predicted significantly by cMCI but not by any of the other three dimensions. These
results conrm the predictive validity of the MCI scale established in
study 4, not for nicely controlled ctitious innovations but rather for
multiple real-life innovations.
5. Innovativeness and socio-demographics: nuancing a former
consensus
Having developed and validated a new and more effective MCI scale,
we can also disprove the general consensus (cf., Dickerson & Gentry,
1983; Manning et al., 1995; Steenkamp et al., 1999; Tellis et al., 2009; Uhl,
Andrus, & Poulsen, 1970; Venkatraman, 1991) that older people are
always signicantly less innovative than younger people. A Manova
with MCI's four dimensions as the dependent variables and gender
and age as the independent variables using a combination of the
datasets of studies 1, 4, and 5 shows that age is only signicant for
sMCI (F(4,1488) = 21.11, p b .001), hMCI (F(4,1488) = 12.99, p b .001),
and, to a lesser extent, cMCI (F(4,1488) = 5.88, p b .001). However, this
is not the case for fMCI (F(4,1488) = 1.67, p = .155); older people are as
functionally innovative as younger people. Gender also leads to
signicant differences. Men are signicantly more innovative than

Table 6
Explained variance (adjusted R2) of MCI compared with the Cognitive/Sensory Innovativeness scale (the CSI, by Venkatraman & Price, 1990) and the Global Consumer
Innovativeness scale (the GCI, by Tellis et al., 2009) (study 4).
Type of innovation

Dependent variable

MCI (four dimensions)

CSI (two dimensions)

Williams's t-test MCI-CSI

GCI (three dimensions)

Williams's t-test MCI-GCI

Functional

Attitude
Buying intention
Attitude
Buying intention
Attitude
Buying intention
Attitude
Buying intention
Attitude
Buying intention

.078***
.209***
.093***
.203***
.155***
.189***
.126***
.185***
.180***
.294***

.023*
.033*
.054***
.041**
.055***
.032*
.063***
.041**
.066***
.059***

1.86
4.14***
1.21
3.90***
2.47*
3.86***
1.65
3.50***
2.70**
5.05***

.039**
.129***
.026*
.077***
.048***
.087***
.047*
.080***
.076***
.159***

1.49
2.04*
2.75**
3.74***
3.48***
2.89**
2.50*
2.91**
3.24**
3.41***

Hedonic
Social
Cognitive
All

*p b .05, **p b .01, ***p b .001, p-values two-sided; Williams's t-test is distributed as a Student's t, with df = n 3.

316

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

Table 7
Unstandardized coefcients of regression analyses (standardized coefcients in
brackets) with the buying intentions for the existing innovations as the dependent
variable and the four MCI dimensions as independent variables (study 5).
Buying intention R2
- Functional
innovations
- Hedonic
innovations
- Social
innovations
- Cognitive
innovation

fMCI

hMCI

sMCI

cMCI

NS

NS

.040 .267 (.110)**

.228 (.099)* NS

NS

.060 NS

NS

.297 (.101)* NS

.036 NS

NS

NS

.080 .419 (.142)*** NS

.534 (.110)*

NS = not signicant, *p b .05, **p b .01, ***p b .001; p-values two-sided; gures in bold
are the expected signicant coefcients.

women because of social (F(1,1488) =22.46, pb .001), cognitive (F(1,1488) =

15.62, p b .001), and hedonic motivations (F(1,1488) = 9.96, p b .001).
However, when it comes to functional innovativeness, women are
as innovative as men (F b 1). Moreover, for cMCI and fMCI, a
signicant interaction effect between gender and age emerges.
Young men have higher cMCI than young women, but from the age of
46 onwards, men and women score equally on cMCI. fMCI increases
with age for women and decreases for men. Other socio-demographic characteristics such as education, income, or family situation do
not affect the MCI dimensions.
6. General discussion
The primary contribution of this research is that it validates a new
consumer innovativeness scale that takes into account multiple
motivations for buying innovations. This effort yields a fourdimensional consumer innovativeness scale including hedonic,
functional, social, and cognitive dimensions. There are several reasons
why this new consumer innovativeness scale is useful. First, the ve
studies show repeatedly and in great detail that the dimensionality,
reliability, and convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the
MCI scale are satisfactory.
Secondly, this study allows us to conclude that the MCI scale
measures more than the existing consumer innovativeness scales. The
MCI scale measures not just the intensity of consumer innovativeness
but also its origin. Additionally, the MCI scale, with its four dimensions
of purchase motives, maintains the middle ground between the
existing general innovativeness scales, which are unimpressive in
predicting innovative buying behavior, and the Domain-Specic
Innovativeness scale developed by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991),
which should score better in terms of predictive validity but is product
specic and thus not very practical. We prove that the MCI scale
performs better in terms of predicting innovative behavior than the
existing general innovativeness scales. Especially for more groundbreaking innovations designed with the different motivations in
mind, the predictive power of the new scale seems high, amounting to
30% (cf., study 4). Finally, this study disproves the general consensus
that younger people are more innovative than older people; older
people are as innovative as younger people as far as functional
innovations are concerned. Most existing innovativeness scales focus
on hedonic and to a lesser degree social innovativeness. Because
older people are less interested in buying innovations purely for the
sake of fun, excitement, or status (i.e., based on hedonic and social
motivations), these scales do not capture the innovativeness of older
people.
6.1. Managerial implications
This research also has practical relevance for product and marketing
managers who are confronted with the difculty of creating and

launching successful innovations. In general, this research may assist in

three managerial domains. (1) The four different innovativeness
motives may provide an interesting line of reasoning for innovation
developers and be a useful product development tool. For example,
when a certain consumer need associated with a specic motivation is
not yet satised by a product within a specic product category, it may
be helpful to develop a new product that can satisfy that particular need.
(2) Helping to identify (motivated) innovative consumers, we offer
different insight than the general consensus in literature, which has
indicated that innovative consumers are usually male and younger than
non-innovative consumers. The use of the MCI scale as a useful market
segmentation tool proves that as far as functional innovations are
concerned, older people and women are as innovative as younger
consumers or men. As a result, an innovation with a functional
advantage as its unique selling proposition may be targeted toward
older or female consumers as well. (3) Moreover, these differently
motivated innovative consumers should be targeted with effective
marketing communications that emphasize and trigger both the specic
motivation and innovativeness itself; marketers should take into
account the needs that their innovations satisfy or the relative
advantages that they confer when selecting the most effective
positioning, communication message, communication medium, and
communication vehicle. For example, communications to hedonic
innovative consumers should focus on the pleasure of acquiring the
innovation. These innovative consumers may be approached more
effectively with experiential marketing, fun, creative TV, or viral
advertisements, whereas an in-store product demonstration or an
informational TV commercial may be a more effective way to reach
functional or cognitive innovative consumers.
6.2. Research limitations and further research
One limitation of this study is that only one Western European
country was surveyed. Lynn and Gelb (1996) show that nationality,
even within Europe, may inuence innovativeness scores. However, the
objective of this research was to construct a multi-dimensional scale and
to compare different motivations for innovation rather than to
determine a general, worldwide standard for Motivated Consumer
Innovativeness. Therefore, even though the means may differ between
countries and cultures, it is very unlikely that the type of motivations
will be different because these dimensions are based on motivation,
goal, and value taxonomies that have been validated cross-culturally
(e.g., Schwartz, 1992).
Moreover, we would not recommend using MCI as a general
innovativeness scale by simply summing the scores for all 20 items
because the model is not conceptualized and has not been validated in
this way. If we were to use this method, a consumer who scored high
on only one of the four motivations would no longer be recognized as
an innovative person, even though he clearly would be based on our
conceptualization of MCI. A general consumer innovativeness scale
would measure the tendency to buy innovations because of the
newness of the products as such. This newness could be considered a
means to different ends, ends that we conceptualize in our four-factor
correlated model. Thus, when one wants a full prole of an innovative
consumer, all four dimensions are of importance. In this sense, the
MCI scale could also be considered a formative model using the four
motivation dimensions, which in turn are reexive constructs.
Additionally, although the results of our predictive validity studies
are satisfactory, there are some issues that require further research.
First, although the cognitive dimension of MCI performs as expected
for the ctitious innovations, it was difcult to identify existing
innovations that primarily minister to the cognitive motivation. On
the list of 96 innovations, there was only one innovation that scored
highest on the cognitive dimension. This result seems inconsistent
with the discriminant validity of cMCI with respect to the other three
dimensions. However, we must remember that the MCI scale is a

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

personality scale; the products used in study 5 could also be

purchased for other (personal) reasons (cf., Gatignon & Robertson,
1985; Venkatraman & Price, 1990) than those indicated in the pretest,
which presents average motivations for purchasing these products. In
fact, all existing products, including the most functional, hedonic, and
social innovations, can be purchased because they stimulate the mind,
for example. With this in mind, an interesting avenue for future
research could be to rate the specic reasons or motivations of each
respondent for each product questioned. Secondly, the predictive
power of the new MCI scale differs signicantly for study 4 and study
5. The two studies seem to differ in two important ways: (1) the type
of innovations, i.e., whether they are ctitious and specically
developed with one of the four dimensions in mind or already exist
and are better performing on one dimension of innovativeness
relative to the others; and (2) the extent to which the innovations
can be classied as breakthrough as opposed to incremental. The
majority of the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPGs) among the 96
innovations in the pretest and all of the CPGs included in the 16
innovations used in study 5 are classied as incremental by Product
Launch Analytics, a subscription-based database that tracks CPGs
(Sorescu & Spanjol, 2008). In contrast, the ctitious innovations used
in study 4 seem to be more groundbreaking. Because these differences
cannot be disentangled in the current studies, it would be interesting
to investigate whether predictive power with respect to existing
innovations increases if the innovations are more groundbreaking
and/or correspond better to the MCI dimensions. Thirdly, hMCI does
not uniquely predict the intention to buy real-life hedonic innovations. If we analyze the hedonic products separately, purchase
intention for some of these products appears to be signicantly
higher for older respondents than younger ones (i.e., After, Douwe
Egberts Black, and new scratch cards). These results contrast with
those obtained using hMCI as a personality scale, in which younger
people score higher than older people. These hedonic products are
probably afliated with product categories that are less popular with
the younger generation (i.e., liquors, coffee, and lottery products) and
that do not relate to consumer innovativeness. In all likelihood,
interest in these categories also has a major inuence on consumers'
buying behavior. This leads us to stress the importance of product
characteristics and other external factors such as opportunity and
capacity as important determinants of innovative buying behavior in
addition to consumer innovativeness (cf., Midgley & Dowling, 1978;
Ostlund, 1974). It also leads us to emphasize that every list of existing
products is limited because of the specicity of these products
(Vandecasteele & Geuens, 2009, p. 142).
Future studies might also consider the consequences of our results
for marketing communications toward differently motivated innovative consumers. A targeted approach in which the medium, form, and
content of the message matches the motivation source of the
innovative consumer may signicantly increase communication
effectiveness.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully thank Hans Baumgartner, Teun De Rycker,
Kelly Geyskens, the editors, the area editor and two anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments and useful suggestions
regarding an earlier version of the manuscript.
References
Arnould, E. J. (1989). Toward a broadened theory of preference formation and the
diffusion of innovations Cases from Zinder-province, Niger-Republic. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(2), 239267.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Grifn, M. (1994). Work and or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644656.
Ballard, R. (1992). Short forms of the MarloweCrowne social desirability scale.
Psychological Reports, 71, 11551160.

317

Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer

Research, 29(2), 286292.
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. (1996). Exploratory consumer buying
behavior: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 13(2), 121137.
Beatty, S. E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent inuence in family decision making: A
replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 332341.
Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A
baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS
Quarterly, 29(3), 399426.
Chesson, D. (2002). The Impact of Value Systems on Consumer Innovativeness across
Three Countries in the Asian Pacic Region. PhD Dissertation.
Chulef, A. S., Read, S. J., & Walsh, D. A. (2001). A hierarchical taxonomy of human goals.
Motivation and Emotion, 25(3), 191232.
Citrin, A. V., Sprott, D. E., Silverman, S. N., & Stem, D. E., Jr. (2000). Adoption of internet
shopping: The role of consumer innovativeness. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 100(7), 294300.
Cotte, J., & Wood, S. L. (2004). Families and innovative consumer behavior: A triadic
analysis of sibling and parental inuence. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1),
7886.
Daghfous, N., Petrof, J. V., & Pons, F. (1999). Values and adoption of innovations: A crosscultural study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(4/5), 314331.
Dickerson, M. D., & Gentry, J. W. (1983). Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of
home computers. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 225235.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the
psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(1), 2129.
Fisher, R. J., & Price, L. L. (1992). An investigation into the social-context of early
adoption behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 477486.
Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1987). A taxonomy of human goals and some possible
applications. In M. E. Ford, & D. H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing systems:
Putting the framework to work (pp. 289311). New York: Erlbaum.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18
(1), 3950.
Foxall, G. R. (1988). Consumer innovativeness: Novelty-seeking, creativity and
cognitive style. Research in Consumer Behavior, 3, 79113.
Foxall, G. R. (1995). Cognitive styles of consumer initiators. Technovation, 15(5),
269288.
Foxall, G. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Brown, S. (1998). Consumer psychology for marketing.
London: Int. Thomson Business Press.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849867.
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97107.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1992). Identifying innovators in consumer product
markets. European Journal of Marketing, 26(12), 4255.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209221.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis, 5th ed. . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc..
Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale
development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable
constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98107.
Hartman, J. B., Gehrt, K. C., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2004). Re-examination of the
concept of innovativeness in the context of the adolescent segment: Development
of a measurement scale. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for
Marketing, 12(4), 353365.
Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283295.
Hirschman, E. C. (1984). Experience seeking A subjectivist perspective of
consumption. Journal of Business Research, 12(1), 115136.
Huffman, C., Ratneshwar, S., & Mick, D. G. (2000). Consumer goal structures and goal
determination processes. In S. Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick, & C. Huffman (Eds.), The why
of consumption (pp. 935). New York: Routledge.
Im, S., Bayus, B. L., & Mason, C. H. (2003). An empirical study of innate consumer
innovativeness, personal characteristics and new-product adoption behavior.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 6173.
Joseph, B., & Vyas, S. J. (1984). Concurrent validity of a measure of innovative cognitive
style. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12(2), 159175.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement proles. Journal
of Marketing Research, 22(1), 4153.
Le Louarn, P. (1997). La tendence innover des consommateurs: Analyse conceptuelle
et proposition d'une chelle de mesure. [The tendency to consumer innovativeness: Conceptual analyses and proposal of a measurement scale].Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, 12(1), 320 (in French).
Leavitt, C., & Walton, J. (1975). Development of a scale for innovativeness. Advances in
Consumer Research, 2(1), 545552.
Lynn, M., & Gelb, B. D. (1996). Identifying innovative national markets for technical
consumer goods. International Marketing Review, 13(6), 4357.
Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and
the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329345.
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness Concept and its measurement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229242.
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(4), 611625.

318

B. Vandecasteele, M. Geuens / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 27 (2010) 308318

Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures Issues and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation
checks: Detecting satiscing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 45(4), 867872.
Ostlund, L. E. (1974). Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness.
Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 2329.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41(1), 203212.
Roehrich, G. (1994). Innovativits hdoniste et sociale: Proposition d'une chelle de
mesure [Hedonic and social innovativeness: A measurement scale].Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, 9(2), 1942 (in French).
Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness Concepts and measurements. Journal
of Business Research, 57(6), 671677.
Roehrich, G., Valette-Florence, P., & Ferrandi, J. -M. (2003). An exploration of the
relationship between innate innovativeness and domain specic innovativeness.
CERAG, 0211.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communications of innovations. New York:
The Free Press.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305335.
Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising communications and promotion
management. London: McGrawHill.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 165.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of
consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159170.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness
in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(1), 4968.
Sorescu, A. B., & Spanjol, J. (2008). Innovation's effect on rm value and risk: Insights
from consumer packaged goods. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 114132.

Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation
into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness.
Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 5569.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological
Bulletin, 87(2), 245251.
Subramanian, S., & Mittelstaedt, R. A. (1991). Conceptualizing innovativeness as a
consumer trait: Consequences and alternatives. American Marketing Association
Educator's Proceedings, 2, 352360.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203220.
Tellis, G. J., Yin, E., & Bell, S. (2009). Global consumer innovativeness: Cross-country
differences and demographic commonalities. Journal of International Marketing, 17
(2), 122.
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 5066.
Tian, K. T., & McKenzie, K. (2001). The long-term predictive validity of the consumers'
need for uniqueness scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 171193.
Uhl, K., Andrus, R., & Poulsen, L. (1970). How are laggards different? An empirical
inquiry. Journal of Marketing Research, 7(1), 5154.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 29.
(pp. 271360)New York: Academic Press.
Vandecasteele, B., & Geuens, M. (2009). Revising the myth of gay consumer
innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 134144.
Venkatraman, M. P. (1991). The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on
adoption. Journal of Retailing, 67(1), 5167.
Venkatraman, M. P., & Price, L. L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory
innovativeness: Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of Business
Research, 20(4), 293315.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3),
310320.
Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer Innovativeness and
Personal Values of Openness and Self-enhancement. Unpublished manuscript,
Ghent.