See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247783719

Fashion Opinion Leadership, Fashion

Innovativeness, and Need for Variety

Article in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal March 1993

DOI: 10.1177/0887302X9301100309

CITATIONS READS

62 414

2 authors, including:

Kim K P Johnson
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
116 PUBLICATIONS 870 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Kim K P Johnson
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 23 November 2016
 Fashion Opinion Leadership, Fashion Innovativeness,
and Need for Variety

Jane E. Workman
Kim K. P. Johnson

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between need for variety and four consumer groups:
fashion opinion leaders, fashion innovators, innovative communicators, and fashion followers. We predicted that
fashion opinion leaders, fashion innovators, and innovative communicators would have a greater need for variety
than would fashion followers. Subjects were 425 undergraduate students. Hirschman and Adcocks Measurement
of Innovativeness and Opinion Leadership was used to identify the four consumer groups. Need for variety was
measured by the Sensation Seeking Scale. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-
Keuls test. Results indicated that there was a significant difference between fashion innovators and fashion
followers on need for variety as measured by the experience seeking component of the Sensation Seeking Scale.
There were no significant differences between fashion opinion leaders or innovative communicators and fashion
followers on the Sensation Seeking Scale. Results suggest that part of the psychological makeup of fashion
innovators is a greater need for variety in the form of mental stimulation than fashion followers possess.

In a society where mass production is practiced, newer
clothing styles are designed to &dquo;age&dquo; styles already owned
by consumers. Thus the marketing objective is directed
toward the consumers response to the factor of obsoles-
cence. The objective is to convince the consumer to reject
what is now owned, which may still be useful, in favor of
something newer which is more in fashion. The process by
which new style innovations are adopted and then spread
through a society is known as the diffusion process.
The main components in the theory of adoption and
diffusion of innovations are (a) the innovation, (b) which is
communicated through certain channels, (c) over time, (d)
innovators and fashion opinion leaders; that is, they are
among the first to adopt new styles, and they also influence
others in the adoption of new styles. Fashion followers are
those consumers who adopt a style after it has been proved
successful.
A desire for change or variety is a key motive in bring-
ing about innovations in fashion (Hurlock, 1929). Bull
(1975) maintained that people continually seek variety
through new sensations and become bored with any stimu-
lation that is constantly experienced. Within the context of
diffusion theory, it could be hypothesized that innovations
are adopted because fashion innovators, opinion leaders,

among the members of a social system (Rogers, 1983).
According to the theory of adoption and diffusion, innova-
tions may spread as a result of interpersonal communication
channels such as change agents.
Typical change agents for the aging of existing clothing
styles and the diffusion of innovations in clothing are opin-
ion leaders, innovators, and innovative communicators.
These three groups can be defined by their role in the
adoption and diffusion process (Baumgarten, 1975). Fash-
ion innovators are those individuals who are the first to age
existing clothing styles by adopting different ones. Fashion
opinion leaders are those consumers who accelerate the
fashion aging process by legitimizing an innovative style
and by influencing others to accept the style innovation as a
and innovative communicators feel a need for variety or
change. To test this hypothesis, the purpose of this study
was to identify the relationship between need for variety
and four consumer groups: fashion opinion leaders, fashion
innovators, innovative communicators, and fashion follow-
ers. We predicted that fashion opinion leaders, fashion
innovators, and innovative communicators would have a
greater need for variety than would fashion followers.
Opinion Leadership
Summers and King (1969) studied opinion leadership
across four product categories including womens clothing
fashions. Opinion leaders, as compared with nonleaders,
were venturesome in trying new products, were involved in

replacement for the currently accepted one. Innovative
communicators are those consumers who are both fashion
Authors Addresses: Jane E. Workman, Department of Vocational
Education Studies, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-
4318; Kim K. P. Johnson, Department of Design, Housing and Apparel,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.
receiving interpersonal communications about womens
clothing styles, perceived themselves as knowledgeable
about womens clothing styles, and had favorable attitudes
toward new products in general and toward new womens
clothing styles in particular.
Myers and Robertson (1972) studied opinion leader-
ship across 12 dimensions including womens clothing/
fashions and cosmetics/personal care. Opinion leadership

60 Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com by guest on August 12, 2015

was highly related to knowledge, discussion, and amount of
interest in womens clothing and fashions.
Chowdhary (1988) investigated whether fashion opin-
ion leaders and nonleaders differed in media exposure, age
perception, fashionability, social activities, and self-esteem.
Opinion leaders had more media exposure, more social
participation, and a greater tendency to select fashionable
styles than nonleaders had.
Innovativeness
Characteristics which may be used to predict innova-
tive purchase behavior include venturesomeness and opti-
mum stimulation level (OSL) (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974;
Raju, 1980; Robertson & Kennedy, 1968; Zuckerman, 1979).
For example, Robertson and Kennedy (1968) investigated
the relationship of innovativeness to venturesomeness, that
is, willingness to take risks in the purchase of new products.
Venturesomeness accounted for most of the behavior differ-
ences between innovators and noninnovators in the pur-
chase of new home appliances.
OSL has been described as the level of stimulation
most preferred by an individual. OSL has been measured
by several instruments including the Sensation Seeking
Scale (Zuckerman, 1979) and the Arousal Seeking Ten-
dency Scale (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Individuals
with high OSL were more innovative, more willing to take
risks, and less rigid in their response patterns than were
those individuals low in OSL (Raju, 1980). Although
Robertson and Kennedy (1968) and Raju (1980) did not
investigate innovative behavior relative to clothing, their
results suggest that those high in OSL or venturesomeness
would be more likely than those low in OSL or venture-
someness to seek change or variety in clothing.
In addition to investigating variables that might be
useful in predicting innovative behavior, researchers have
investigated characteristics that differentiate fashion inno-
vators from noninnovators. For example, Pasnak and Ayres
(1969) compared fashion innovators and noninnovators on
clothing attitudes and personality characteristics. Innova-
tors as compared to noninnovators were significantly more
interested in dressing for self, interested in using clothing
for experimentation, and tolerant of ambiguity. Innovators
showed significantly more strength of feeling about cloth-
ing, involvement with clothing, and clarity of decisions
about clothing and scored higher on self-acceptance than
noninnovators.
In subsequent research Chun and Davis (1988) utilized
Hirschman and Adcocks (1978) fashion innovativeness
scale to identify fashion innovators versus noninnovators to
investigate whether these two groups differed in the length
of time they retained clothing, the ways in which they
disposed of used clothing, and the factors underlying the
disposal of used clothing. Fashion innovators were more
likely to wear clothing for a shorter period of time and to
dispose of clothing due to fashionability and conformity
reasons than noninnovators.
Opinion Leadership and Innovativeness
Although fashion opinion leaders and fashion innova-
tors serve different functions in the diffusion of innova-
tions, researchers have found similarities between charac-
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com by guest on August 12, 2015
teristics of opinion leaders and innovators. Robertson and
Myers (1969) studied the relationship of personality to opin-
ion leadership and innovativeness. Innovative behavior
was measured by self-reports of new product purchases in
the categories of clothing, appliances, and food. The Cali-
fornia Psychological Inventory was used to measure per-
sonality characteristics in 18 areas. All correlations of
personality characteristics with opinion leadership and
innovativeness were low. Innovativeness in clothing corre-
lated moderately with sociability (defined as outgoing with
a participative temperament).
Schrank and Gilmore (1973) investigated the relationship
between fashion opinion leadership, fashion innovativeness,
and the following: level of security-insecurity, attitudes to-
ward conformity in dress, interest in clothing, and socioeco-
nomic level. Innovators were more secure and more interested
in clothing than were noninnovators. Innovativeness, atti-
tudes toward conformity in dress, and clothing interest were
all positively correlated with opinion leadership.
In addition to opinion leaders and innovators,
Baumgarten (1975) investigated a third group-innovative
communicators-consumers who are both fashion innova-
tors and opinion leaders. Innovativeness was measured by
assessing the extent to which an individual currently owned
those clothing styles which, in the aggregate opinion of all
respondents, were expected to grow in popularity during
the next six months. Opinion leadership was measured
using an instrument developed by Rogers and Cartano
(1962). Innovative communicators were those respondents
who scored high on both the opinion leadership and the
fashion innovativeness measures. Innovative communica-
tors spent more on clothing, knew more about clothing
styles and brands, owned more different styles, were more
familiar with cosmetics, and owned more cosmetics than
other consumers.
Hirschman and Adcock (1978) developed a self-desig-
nating scale to differentiate between innovative communi-
cators, fashion opinion leaders, fashion innovators, and the
general population. They investigated the relationship of
these constructs to media selection, store attribute evalua-
tions, and purchasing patterns for a sample of male con-
sumers. Innovative communicators, opinion leaders, and
innovators all tended to be younger, more likely to partici-
pate in social activities, and more likely to prefer jazz/rock-
oriented radio stations than the general population.
Lennon and Davis (1987) utilized the Hirschman and
Adcock (1978) scale to investigate individual differences in
cognitive complexity, fashion opinion leadership, and fash-
ion innovativeness. Level of cognitive complexity was
measured by the Paragraph Completion Method. Lower
levels of cognitive complexity are characterized by simple,
dichotomous evaluations (e.g., socially acceptable or unac-
ceptable, correct or incorrect). Higher levels of cognitive
complexity are characterized by awareness of alternatives
and tolerance for differing points of views. Fashion innova-
tors functioned at a higher level of cognitive complexity
than noninnovators. Fashion opinion leaders functioned at
a lower level of cognitive complexity than did nonleaders.
Davis (1987) utilized the Hirschman and Adcock (1978)
scale to investigate whether purchasing involvement of
fashion opinion leaders and fashion innovators was specific
61
to fashion or whether it was a more general characteristic.
Slama and Tashchians (1985) Purchasing Involvement Scale
was used to measure degree of purchasing involvement.
Subjects who scored high on fashion opinion leadership or
high on fashion innovativeness were more interested in
shopping than were subjects who scored low, but there were
no differences in their interest in saving money, in reading
consumer publications, or in making quality purchases.
To further understand the diffusion process, it is impor-
tant to consider what motivates the behavior of innovative
communicators, fashion opinion leaders, and fashion inno-
vators. Variety seeking may be one motivation.
Method
Subjects
College students exhibit many of the characteristics
associated with innovative behavior and opinion leadership;
they are young, socially active, and exposed to diverse
sources of information. Therefore, college students were
selected as subjects, not only for convenience but also be-
cause we anticipated there would be, within this population,
a sufficient number of fashion innovators and opinion lead-
ers for data analysis. Students (N =
425, males = 49,
females = 376) enrolled in two southwestern universities
volunteered to participate in the study. Males were propor-
tionately distributed throughout the four groups but were
not present in sufficient number for a separate analysis by
sex of subject.
Instruments
Hirschman and Adcocks (1978) Measure of Inno-
vativeness and Opinion Leadership was used to identify
four consumer groups. This instrument is not only easy and
convenient to administer but has been shown to have both
content validity and reliability (Hirschman & Adcock, 1978).
In accordance with a procedure recommended by Touliatos
and Compton (1988), content validity was established by
ensuring that questions in the instrument represented the
constructs as defmed in the literature and that the questions
were understandable by the individuals under study. One of
the constructs was fashion innovativeness, that is, the will-
ingness to try new products relatively early in the product
life cycle. The other construct was fashion opinion leader-
ship, that is, influencing others in purchase decisions, giv-
ing advice, and being an information source. Evidence for
the validity of these two constructs is documented by their
extensive use in research. As an additional measure of the
construct validity of Hirschman and Adcocks scale, a fac-
tor analysis was performed on the 6-item scale. This re-
sulted in two factors, both with an eigenvalue greater than 1.
The first factor was composed of the three questions that
related to Fashion Innovativeness, and the second factor was
composed of the three questions that related to Fashion Opin-
ion Leadership. A measure of inter-item reliability (Cronbachs
alpha) of the total 6-item scale yielded an a of .79.
Reliability of each of the factors was also assessed.
Hirschman and Adcocks scale used three questions to
62
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com by guest on August 12, 2015
measure Fashion Innovativeness. &dquo;How often are you willing
to try new ideas about clothing fashions?&dquo; &dquo;How often do you
try something new in the next seasons fashions?&dquo; &dquo;How
often are you usually among the first to try new clothing
fashions?&dquo; The reliability of these items was a = .76.
Hirschman and Adcock also used three questions to
measure Fashion Opinion Leadership. &dquo;How often do you
influence the types of clothing fashions your friends buy?&dquo;
&dquo;How often do others turn to you for advice on fashion and
clothing?&dquo; &dquo;How many of your friends and neighbors
regard you as a good source of advice on clothing fash-
ions ?&dquo; The reliability of these items was a = .73. Re-
sponses to the three questions in each factor were summed
(range = 0-12) to create a composite score.
In accordance with Hirschman and Adcocks proce-
dure, fashion innovators were operationalized as persons
scoring one standard deviation above the mean on the mea-
sure of Fashion Innovativeness but below one standard
deviation above the mean on Fashion Opinion Leadership.
Fashion opinion leaders were operationalized as persons
scoring one standard deviation above the mean on Fashion
Opinion Leadership but below one standard deviation above
the mean on Fashion Innovativeness. Innovative communi-
cators were operationally defined as persons who scored
one standard deviation above the mean on both Fashion Inno-
vativeness and Fashion Opinion Leadership. Fashion follow-
ers were operationalized as persons scoring below one stan-
dard deviation above the mean on both Fashion Innovative-
ness and Fashion Opinion Leadership (see Table 1).
Table 1. Operationalization of consumer groups.
Scores could range from 0-12.
Need for variety was measured by the Sensation Seek-
ing Scale (Zuckerman, 1979: a = .94). The Sensation
Seeking Scale was selected because it is designed to mea-
sure four components of variety seeking. The first compo-
nent, thrill and adventure seeking (TAS), measures risktaking
in physical activities as a means of creating arousal; for
example, &dquo;I would like to try parachute jumping&dquo; (cm - .94).
The second component, experience seeking (ES), measures
the seeking of arousal through the mind and senses; for
 example, &dquo;People should dress in individual ways even if
the effects are sometimes strange&dquo; (a = .89). The third
component, disinhibition (DIS), measures patterns of non-
conformity through rebellion against strict codes about ac-
ceptable social behavior; for example, &dquo;I like wild, uninhib-
ited parties&dquo; (a =
.91). The fourth component, boredom
susceptibility (BS), measures an aversion for repetitive ex-
perience of any kind; for example, &dquo;I cant stand watching a
movie that Ive seen before&dquo; (a =
.70). The Sensation
Seeking Scale contains 40 items (range = 40-80) requesting
subjects to endorse one statement from a pair; for example,
&dquo;I like wild uninhibited parties&dquo; or &dquo;I prefer quiet parties
with good conversation.&dquo;
Procedure
The instrument used to collect the data was adminis-
tered in large group settings. Subjects volunteered to par-
ticipate in a research study examining university students
interests and preferences.
Results
Results of the ANOVA indicated that there was a
significant difference in scores on the Sensation Seeking
Scale among the four groups (see Table 2). The Student-
Newman-Keuls test revealed this was due to a significant
difference between fashion innovators (M 60.97) and
=
fashion followers (M = 58.37), p < .05. Analyses of the four
components of the Sensation Seeking Scale revealed a sig-
nificant difference on the experience seeking component
(see Table 2). The Student-Newman-Keuls test revealed
this was due to a significant difference between fashion
innovators (M 15.61) and fashion followers (M 14.64),
= =
p < .05. There were no significant differences between
fashion opinion leaders or innovative communicators and
fashion followers on the Sensation Seeking Scale.
Discussion
Results suggest that part of the psychological makeup
of fashion innovators is a greater need for variety in the
form of mental stimulation than for fashion followers. This
is consistent with the results of Lennon and Davis (1987),
who found that cognitive complexity (e.g., awareness of
alternatives) was positively related to fashion innovativeness.
Evaluating alternatives is likely to be more mentally stimu-
lating than simple categorical responses. This interpreta-
tion is also consistent with research demonstrating that
fashion innovators as compared with noninnovators are
more interested in clothing (Davis, 1987; Schrank & Gilmore,
1973), more interested in shopping and more involved with
clothing (Davis, 1987; Pasnak & Ayres, 1969), and more
interested in experimentation with clothing and show more
strength of feeling about clothing (Pasnak & Ayres, 1969).
To the degree that expressions of interest, involvement,
Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com by guest on August 12, 2015
Table 2. Results of analyses of variance on Sensation Seeking
Scale and component parts.
*The Student-Newman-Keuls test revealed that a significant
difference (p < .05) existed between fashion innovators and
fashion followers.
emotion, and experimentation with clothing suggest the
expenditure of mental effort, these activities may reflect
attempts to satisfy a need for one particular type of variety,
mental stimulation. Thus, variety seeking in the form of
mental stimulation appears to offer a parsimonious explana-
tion for the results of several previous studies.
Results from this study suggest that one of the motiva-
tions behind adoption and diffusion of new clothing styles
is a need for variety in the form of mental stimulation. The
fmding that innovative communicators and fashion opinion
leaders did not have a greater need for mental stimulation
than fashion followers suggests that it is not a need for
variety that motivates communication and promotion of
new styles. Future research might investigate additional
factors that motivate fashion innovators or might be di-
rected at identifying factors that motivate fashion opinion
leaders. Future research might also investigate a possible
link between need for variety and consumer risktaking be-
havior. By definition, innovations are new styles and,
therefore, a degree of risk is present in their adoption. There-
fore, willingness to take risks in the purchase of new cloth-
ing styles might be related to a need for mental stimulation.
References
Baumgarten, S. (1975). The innovative communicator in
the diffusion process. Journal of Marketing Research,
, 12-18.
7
Bull, R. (1975). Psychology, clothing and fashion: A re-
view. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society,
28, 459-465.
Chowdhary, U. (1988). Are fashion opinion leaders differ-
ent from fashion nonleaders? In Joan E. Gritzmacher &
Rebecca P. Lovingood (Eds.), American Home Eco-
nomics Association annual meeting research abstracts
(p. 45). Bloomington, IL: Meridian Education.
Chun, H., & Davis, L. (1988). Differences between fashion
innovators and non-fashion innovators in their clothing
disposal practices. In Cherilyn Nelson (Ed.), ACPTC
combined proceedings (p. 145). Monument, CO: Asso-
ciation of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing.
63
Davis, L. (1987). Fashion innovativeness, fashion opinion
leadership and purchasing involvement. In Ruth
Marshall (Ed.), ACPTC combined proceedings (p. 128).
Monument, CO: Association of College Professors of
Textiles and Clothing.
Hirschman, E., & Adcock, W. (1978). An examination of
innovative communicators, opinion leaders, and inno-
vators for mens fashion apparel. In H. Keith Hunt
(Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 303-314).
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Hurlock, E. (1929). The psychology of dress. New York:
Ronald Press.
Lennon, S., & Davis, L. (1987). Individual differences in
fashion orientation and cognitive complexity. Percep-
tual and Motor Skills, 64, 327-330.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to envi-
ronmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Myers, J., & Robertson, T. (1972). Dimensions of opinion
leadership. Journal of Marketing Research, 9 , 41-46.
Pasnak, M., & Ayres, R. (1969). Clothing attitudes and
personality characteristics of fashion innovators. Jour-
nal of Home Economics, 61, 698-702.
Raju, P. (1980, December). Optimum stimulation level: Its
relationship to personality, demographics, and explor-
atory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7,
272-282.
64 Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com by guest on August 12, 2015
Robertson, T., & Kennedy, J. (1968). Prediction of consumer
innovators: Application of multiple discriminant analy-
sis. Journal of Marketing Research, 5, 64-69.
Robertson, T., & Myers, J. (1969). Personality correlates of
opinion leadership and innovative buying behavior.
Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 164-168.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New
York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E., & Cartano, D. (1962). Methods of measuring
opinion leadership. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 435.
Schrank, H., & Gilmore, D. L. (1973). Correlates of fashion
leadership: Implications for fashion process theory. The
Sociological Quarterly, 14, 534-543.
Slama, M., & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic
and demographic characteristics associated with purchas-
ing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49, 72-82.
Summers, J., & King, C. (1969). Interpersonal communica-
tion and new product attitudes. In P. R. McDonald
(Ed.), American Marketing Association fall conference
proceedings (pp. 292-299). Chicago: American Mar-
keting Association.
Touliatos, J., & Compton, N. (1988). Research methods in
human ecology/home economics. Ames: Iowa State
University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the opti-
mal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.