A Structural Look at

Consumer Innovativeness
and Self-Congruence in New
Product Purchases
Kelly O. Cowart
Florida State University

Gavin L. Fox
Texas Tech University

Andrew E. Wilson
York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

Consumer innovativeness and new product purchasing literatures

are replete with solid yet unrelated theories that have not been con-
sidered simultaneously as part of a larger psychological framework.
This oversight limits the ability of practitioners to effectively target
the valuable consumer innovators market segment. In this study, an
approach/avoidance framework of new product purchase intentions
is discussed and empirically tested via structural equation modeling.
Consumer innovativeness, self-congruence, and satisfaction play the
role of approach mechanisms, while perceived risk acts as an avoid-
ance mechanism. The authors combine a set of related yet discon-
nected theories, while suggesting a means of appealing to consumer
innovators through a specific form of self-congruence. A sample of
741 students is employed to examine these issues. Several notable
findings are highlighted, including verification of indirect relation-
ships between the independent variables and behavioral intent.
Model fit is excellent and results are consistent across the handheld
devices, home entertainment, and music industries. © 2008 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25(12): 1111–1130 (December 2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20256
1111
Revenue from new products plays a pivotal role in the expansion of many firms.
For instance, Kraft Foods derives $800 million in annual sales from new prod-
uct launches each year (Dahm, 2002). The success of a launch often hinges on
the manufacturer’s ability to convince consumers of the item’s novelty. There-
fore, it is insightful for marketers seeking growth through new product launches
to gain an understanding of how consumers form behavioral intentions related to
innovative new products.
While consumer perceptions and responses to new product launches have been
studied extensively in consumer behavior since the introduction of the Bass
model of diffusion of innovation (Bass, 1969), a major gap remains. The inter-
vening psychological process between the individual trait of innovativeness and
the behavior of new product adoption is not well understood. As a function of
this, marketers often fail to appropriately segment and target innovators, poten-
tially hindering, and sometimes even eliminating, diffusion attempts. This
research begins to address this gap by applying approach/avoidance theory
(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2002) to model the interplay between the personal-
ity trait of innovativeness, self-concept as embodied in self-image congruence,
affect as embodied in satisfaction, risk perceptions, and the outcome of behav-
ioral intentions. Approach/avoidance theory was adopted following a review of rel-
evant literatures, during which alternative theories were considered. It was
concluded that approach/avoidance theory provided the best foundation for the
proposed model, as it is primarily based on the belief that much of human behav-
ior consists of attempts to create and maintain conformity to desired goals (Carver,
Sutton, & Scheier, 2002). As such, it is a plausible conceptual framework for
understanding how the aforementioned constructs drive behavioral intent.
It is theorized herein that innovators are more sensitive to the incentives of
new product purchases than are other consumers. Conversely, innovators are less
attuned to the potential threats in the new product purchase environment.
These relative sensitivities combine to influence purchase intentions. In addi-
tion, it is argued here that innovators have more fluid self-concepts and are
therefore more likely to experience congruence between the symbolic aspects of
new products and their own conception of self.
The extant literature is replete with studies that specify relationships between
behavioral intention and the constructs of satisfaction and perceived risk. This
should not be surprising, as satisfaction represents a primary approach mecha-
nism (Oliver, 1993) and perceived risk a primary avoidance mechanism (Das &
Teng, 2004; Gürhan-Canli & Batra, 2004). Numerous studies, as highlighted in
Table 1, analyze the link between innovativeness, perceived risk, and behavioral
outcomes, such as new product adoption and purchase intention. However, a
review of the literature fails to produce an empirical study that establishes a
link between innovativeness and self-congruence within the context of consumer
behavior or any test of the multivariate relationship between innovativeness,
perceived risk, self-congruence, satisfaction, and behavioral intention. As dis-
cussed in subsequent sections, the absence of the self-congruence construct in new
product purchasing literature may represent a critical shortcoming.
The present research extends the scope of the existing nomological network
surrounding new product purchases in two major ways. First, it examines how
approach mechanisms such as consumer innovativeness, self-congruence, and
satisfaction interact with avoidance mechanisms such as perceived risk. Second,
it analyzes how approach and avoidance mechanisms ultimately motivate

1112 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 1. Literature Linking Innovativeness, Perceived Risk, and Self-
Congruence to Behavior Intentions.

Relevant Link(s) to Empirically

Source Constructs Outcomes Tested?

Lee & Huddleston (2006) INN, PR BI Yes

Sääkjärvi & Lampinen (2005) INN PR Yes
Agustin & Singh (2005) SAT, INN BI Yes
Gürhan-Canli & Batra (2004) INN, PR BI Yes
Park & Jun (2003) INN, PR BI Yes
Sethi, Smith, & Park (2001) INN, PR BI Yes
Quester, Karunaratna, & Goh (2000) SC BI Yes
Pennings & Smidts (2000) INN, PR BI Yes
Goldsmith & Hofacker (1991) INN BI Yes
Childers (1986) INN, PR BI Yes
Note: INN ⫽ innovativeness, PR ⫽ perceived risk, SAT ⫽ satisfaction, SC ⫽ self-congruity, BI ⫽ behavioral
intention.

consumers to pursue or shun new product purchases. The authors combine the
insights of previous work, and empirically test a model of new product adoption
that considers the combined effects of these variables on behavioral intentions.
Nomological validity is perhaps the most important contribution of all, in that
it refers to the adequacy of the theoretical framework and, in particular, to the
subsystem of laws, hypotheses, and assumptions which relate the construct to
observable behavior (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Therefore, the authors attempt
to establish a framework for consumer innovativeness within the context of new
product purchases. This paper simultaneously considers the relationships among
a variety of constructs that receive varying degrees of attention in the market-
ing literature. However, while an associative link is clearly possible, these con-
structs have not been examined together. In addition, the paper addresses the
understudied questions of how product and self-image interact in new product
adoption.
An improved understanding of how the individual consumer trait of innova-
tiveness leads to new product adoption has important theoretical and manage-
rial implications. The theoretical framework provides researchers with a
springboard for future research to better understand the possible antecedents
and motivators of consumer behavior. From a managerial standpoint, a better
understanding of the role that self-congruence plays in the adoption of new
products among innovators aids marketers in building specifically targeted and
customized promotion appeals that emphasize the symbolic aspects of new prod-
uct ownership and maximize new product diffusion.

BACKGROUND

The decision of whether or not to adopt an innovative product represents goal

conflict for many consumers to a greater or lesser extent at some point in time.
In the terminology of approach/avoidance theory (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier,
2002), innovative products represent some potential incentives (e.g., product
benefits, social group membership), as well as some threats (e.g., financial risk,

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1113

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
social ridicule). In the adoption decision, consumers tend to consider salient
incentives and threats. If incentives dominate, approach motivation tends to
guide the consumer’s behavioral activation system, and adoption is likely. If,
however, threats are perceived to be dominant, the consumer’s behavioral inhi-
bition system tends to respond with avoidance motivation, making adoption
unlikely (Gray, 1994). Thus, approach and avoidance behaviors are likely to
lead to adoption decisions in general and may partially explain a customer’s
new product adoption likelihood in particular.
Previous studies (e.g., Powers, 1973) develop a view of people as organiza-
tions of self-regulating feedback systems where much of their behavior attempts
to create and sustain conformity to desired goals. This phenomenon, known as
discrepancy-reducing feedback, is in essence an approach process whose refer-
ence points correspond quite readily with goal-based models of behavior and per-
sonality (e.g., Higgins, 1987). This overall theme is represented in the work of
Carver and Scheier (1999), who posit that this logical structure can be applied
to goals that represent dynamic and evolving targets. These researchers argue
that discrepancy-reducing systems are inherently stable and continue to pursue
a target even if the target itself is changing. A simple exemplar of this
concept can be drawn from the physical sciences by considering the way in which
the human body regulates its temperature regardless of the excessive or reduced
physical exertion of its members. Although a person’s temperature may vary, it
tends to remain within a narrow range (unless dire circumstances are present).
This system is similar in new product contexts. For example, the presence of
new electronics (e.g., iPhone, PSP3) in the marketplace may create discrepancies
for electronics innovators who have the goal of owning the most state-of-the-art
technology. These consumers often demonstrate a willingness to pay premium
prices, downplay the risks associated with unresolved product functionality, and
stand in line for several days to attain goal congruence (e.g., Crum, 2007).
In addition, individual personality differences are suggested to result in
greater sensitivity to incentives and threats (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2002).
Some people are relatively more sensitive to the presence of incentives, whereas
others are less so. Some are more sensitive to the presence of threats or risks,
whereas still others are less concerned with these possibilities. As a result,
some people are influenced to a greater extent by the pursuit of incentives,
whereas others are influenced to a greater extent by avoidance of threats. Of
course, a balance of approach and avoidance tendencies influences many people.
This differential sensitivity may explain why some consumers focus on the ben-
efits offered by a new product, despite the accompanying risk, whereas others
emphasize the risks, even in the face of the compelling benefits of adoption.
Beginning with this essential framework, the authors use the literature on each
of the constructs to build a research model, as detailed in the following sections.

Innovativeness
The existing literature reveals two distinct conceptualizations of innovative-
ness and its link to new product adoption. First, Midgley and Dowling (1978)
define innate innovativeness as “the degree to which an individual makes inno-
vation decisions independently of the communicated experiences of others”
(p. 235). Consumer experience refers to data conveyed from one consumer
to another and is commonly based on the source’s personal experience with a

1114 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
new product (Hirschman, 1980; Manning, Bearden, & Madden, 1995). These
researchers view innovativeness as a personality trait possessed to some degree
by all individuals. It is described as a continuous variable, normally distributed
within a population of consumers, and generalizable across products.
On the contrary, Hirschman (1980) reasons that earlier conceptualizations
view innovativeness as constant, when it is actually socially influenced and vari-
ant across a person’s life cycle. Hirschman goes on to redefine innovativeness as
the desire to seek out the new and different (p. 285) and in so doing likens inno-
vativeness to inherent novelty seeking. In this realm, novelty seeking is found
to be conceptually indistinguishable from the willingness to adopt new products
(i.e., inherent innovativeness). Thus, a consumer who expresses a willingness to
adopt a new product is also necessarily expressing a desire for novel experiences,
which manifests itself in the form of acceptance of new ideas, partaking of
new services, and obtaining new tangible goods (Hirschman, 1980; Ruvio,
2008). Hirschman’s definition of innovativeness is herein adopted due to its
acknowledgment of an early adopter’s innate attraction to products that
are new. Much of the early research in this area considers the global tendency
of individuals to be open to new experiences in general, whereas later work
focuses on market-relevant and specific new product domains (e.g., Goldsmith &
Hofacker, 1991).
Consumer innovators are a valuable resource to firms introducing new products,
as they perform an essential role in the diffusion of innovation (Ruvio & Shoham,
2007). Consumer innovators are known to acquire large amounts of new product
information through novelty seeking behavior and to influence the product choices
of other shoppers by sharing knowledge (Goldsmith, Flynn, & Goldsmith, 2003).
Innovators are knowledgeable, relatively price insensitive, and likely to be heavy
users (Goldsmith, 2001). In addition, they influence later buyers by serving as
models to be imitated and through opinion leadership, which is also measured at
the level of a specific product domain (Shoham & Ruvio, 2008).
Researchers also show a direct link between consumer innovativeness
and behavioral intentions in a variety of domains. For example, Goldsmith and
Hofacker (1991) conceptualize and measure consumer innovativeness at the
product category level, describing domain specific innovativeness. Flynn,
Goldsmith, and Eastman (1996) subsequently demonstrate that domain spe-
cific innovativeness strongly influences innovative purchasing within a specific
product category. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H1: Innovativeness positively affects behavioral intentions for new products.

Self-Congruence
Theoretically speaking, self-congruity theory is typically used to explain the
effect of self-image congruence on consumer behavior (Sirgy, 1985). This theory
proposes that consumer behavior is determined, in part, by the congruence
resulting from a psychological comparison involving the product-user image
and the consumer’s self-concept (e.g., actual self-image, ideal self-image, social
self-image).
Sirgy (1985) states that products and services can be conceptualized as hav-
ing personality images, just as people do. These personality images, or product

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1115

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
images, can be described in terms of “a set of attributes such as friendly, mod-
ern, youthful and traditional” (p. 195). The personality attributes associated
with a product are distinguished from functional attributes of a product (e.g.,
quality or price) and are determined not just by the physical characteristics of
the product, but also by a host of factors including other marketing communi-
cations and psychological associations (Sirgy, 1985; Chang, 2005b; Fleck &
Quester, 2007; Walchli, 2007). For example, a consumer may want to be more
attractive and as a result purchases cosmetics that are endorsed by an attrac-
tive celebrity because that celebrity is consistent with how the consumer wants
to see him or herself. Self-congruence is thus traditionally couched in terms of
a specific brand or product. The present research extends this conceptualization
to the new product category level and, more specifically, new products in a spe-
cific domain. Congruence still prompts goal directed behavior in this conceptu-
alization, but the focus is on the image related to new products in a domain
rather than on specific products or brands. For example, a consumer electron-
ics innovator is driven by the goal of possessing electronics that are consistent
with a certain image. That image as it pertains to new products is likely one of
technical sophistication, wealth, or intelligence. Thus, the electronics consumer
innovator may purchase new electronics products because typical innovators
appear to be savvy, knowledgeable, and wealthy and because such characteris-
tics are consistent with the consumer’s self-image.
The psychological comparison between the innovator and the typical user
can be categorized as higher or lower on self-congruity. Higher self-congruity is
typically experienced when consumers determine that the product–user image
matches that of their own self-image. Low self-congruity typically occurs when
the product–user image does not match the consumer’s perceived self-image.
Self-congruity is shown to affect consumer behavior through self-concept motives,
such as the need for self-consistency and self-esteem (Sirgy et al., 1997;
Fitzmaurice, 2005). Consumer researchers assume that this interplay between
product image and consumer’s self-concept results in self-image/product image
congruity, which in turn affects the consumer’s product preference and pur-
chase intention (e.g., Thorbjørnsen, Pedersen, & Nysveen, 2007). Within this
framework, one could expect purchase intentions for new products to also depend
directly on self-image congruence. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H2: Self-congruence with new products positively affects behavioral inten-

tions for new products.

Innovativeness is conceptualized as a less abstract form of novelty seeking

(Manning, Bearden, & Madden, 1995). The authors theorize that such novelty
seeking includes being open to changes in one’s own self-concept. That is, inno-
vators, being high on novelty seeking, are likely to have more fluid and adapt-
able self-concepts. This is expected because an innovator is likely to adjust his
or her self-concept in response to changes in the surrounding world. In con-
trast, individuals who are low on novelty seeking are likely to have more rigid
self-concepts, owing to their need to limit new experiences, and these individ-
uals are likely to avoid changing their self-concepts. This need to maintain a more
consistent self-concept may partially explain why some consumers are resistant
to adopting new products, even in the presence of favorable evaluations of the
benefits and value offered (Jamal & Goode, 2001).

1116 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Consider the example of an individual who came of age during the late six-
ties and early seventies, and who views him or herself as a fan of the classic rock
and roll music that was popular at the time. If this individual has a personal-
ity that is high on openness to new experience (and therefore innovativeness),
then as new musical genres are introduced during successive years, the indi-
vidual may have little trouble updating his or her self-concept to become a fan
of disco, modern rock, and hip-hop music. If, on the other hand, this individual’s
personality is low on novelty seeking (and is therefore low on innovativeness),
adapting his or her self-concept is less likely. Because this individual is less
open to new experiences, the individual may seek to hold his or her conception
of self stable over time, and thus avoid the new experience of redefining the
self-concept. In this case, the individual is more likely to continue to see him-
or herself as only a classic rock fan throughout the passage of time. Following
this reasoning, innovativeness is expected to lead to greater self-congruence for
new products. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H3: Innovativeness positively affects perceived self-congruence in the context

of new product purchases.

Perceived Risk
Perceived risk is consistently linked to behavioral intentions (Howard & Sheth,
1969; Bennett & Harrell, 1975) and is often defined as the “probability of unfa-
vorable outcomes” (Das & Teng, 2004). Given this definition, the absence of per-
ceived risk should promote behavioral intentions (approach), while the presence
of risk should discourage them (avoidance). Germane to the concept of risk is
uncertainty (Klerck & Sweeney, 2007). Many new products are considered inher-
ently risky and carry with them varying levels of uncertainty. They are often
incomplete and may contain imperfections that have yet to be fully discovered
or resolved. New products may also be subject to rapid obsolescence or lose value
due to a failure to become the dominant platform. This was the case with Beta
HiFi and VHS video platforms. VHS ultimately became the industry standard
and the consumers who adopted Beta HiFi were left with an unsupported enter-
tainment system. In this instance, early adoption of the Beta system proved
detrimental due to its abbreviated product life cycle. Risk-averse consumers
are thus likely to delay purchases to limit downside risk. As risk perceptions
diminish, purchases are more likely to ensue. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H4: For new product purchases, perceived risk negatively affects behavioral
intentions.

Building on Midgley and Dowling’s (1978) work, Foxall and Bhate (1991)
suggest that innovative behavior is modeled as a function of the innate innov-
ativeness personality trait, interest in a new product category, and situational
influences. Innate innovativeness is described as a tendency to make innovative
decisions “independently of the communicated experience of others” (Midgley &
Dowling, 1978), and typically involves a tendency to perceive less risk and
explore new solutions to consumption problems (Steenkamp & Baumgartner,
1992). In terms of approach/avoidance theory, innovators possess personality

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1117

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
traits that make them less sensitive to the presence of threats in the environ-
ment and more sensitive to the presence of incentives (Carver, Sutton, & Sheier,
2002). Given these relative sensitivities, innovators are expected to perceive
less risk in the relevant new product category. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H5: For new product purchases, innovativeness negatively affects perceived

risk.

Satisfaction
Satisfaction is often defined as an affective state (Lam et al., 2004), which can
be an overall evaluation of a consumption experience over time (Anderson, For-
nell, & Lehmann, 1994) or a reaction to a recent transaction with a firm (Oliver,
1993). Consistent with extant research, satisfaction exists in the present model
as an emotional incentive that leads to behavioral outcomes (Oliver, 1993). Self-
congruence is expected to precede satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 1997). In fact, Sirgy
et al. (1997) find a strong positive relationship between self-congruence and
satisfaction with products. As a result, consumers are expected to be more sat-
isfied when their goals, be they self-congruence or another, are met and tend to
be dissatisfied when their goals are impeded.
Self-congruence not only impacts satisfaction, it also aids in the regulation
of affective states, such that consistent thoughts and messages lead to positive
emotion (Markus & Wurf, 1987). For example, a consumer electronics innova-
tor is often happier paying a premium price for a new gadget than getting a
great deal on an existing model because the former tends to be more consistent
with the individual’s goal of self-image maintenance. Self-congruence is thus
expected to lead to higher satisfaction. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H6: In new product purchases, self-congruence positively affects satisfaction.

Affective states are also shown to consistently impact consumer behavior

(Park, Lennon, & Stoel, 2005) and aspects of new product encounters can impact
satisfaction. For example, a newly purchased product that breaks after a short
period of time should induce dissatisfaction. In contrast, the exceptional per-
formance of a new product should engender satisfaction. Consistent with
Schwartz’s (1990) findings, people who are in positive affective states, such as
satisfaction, are likely to evaluate new products more favorably than those who
are in negative affective states.
Satisfaction is also commonly recognized as a key driver of behavioral inten-
tions (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Zeithaml,
Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Taylor & Baker,
1994). It stands to reason that satisfied consumers tend to purchase, repur-
chase, and display positive word-of-mouth behaviors more than dissatisfied con-
sumers. Thus, satisfaction leads to customer retention, increased market share,
and profitability (Rust & Zahorik, 1993). The relationship between satisfaction
and behavioral intentions is thus another important link in the hypothesized
approach/avoidance model. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H7: In new product purchases, satisfaction positively affects behavioral

intentions.

1118 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Affect also has the potential to alter perceived risk. For example, Johnson and
Tversky (1983) report that positive affect reduces perceived risk, whereas neg-
ative affect elicits the opposite reaction. Specifically, the results suggest that
affect has a large and pervasive impact on estimates of the frequency of risks,
such that the creation of positive affect produces a global decrease in the judged
frequency of risks. Research by Kramer and Yoon (2007) also demonstrates that
positive affect is often used as an input in product satisfaction judgments regard-
less of an individual’s approach versus avoidance motivation, while negative
affect is typically used by individuals with a predominant approach motivation.
New products, though inherently riskier, are shown to elevate affect and decrease
perceptions of risk (Park, Lennon, & Stoel, 2005). For example, purchasing a new
personal digital assistant (PDA) may be risky due to programming bugs, but the
increase in self-esteem from owning a high-status new product or the euphoria
from completing such a purchase may make the risk seem worthwhile. Thus, it
may be reasonable to conclude that satisfaction reduces risk evaluations. There-
fore, it is proposed that:

H8: Satisfaction negatively affects perceived risk for new product purchases.

METHODS

Data Collection
To enhance the generalizability of results, samples were collected from three
industries: home entertainment equipment, music, and handheld devices.
These industries were chosen for their propensity toward innovative new prod-
uct introductions. Music has also been used in prior empirical work in innova-
tiveness conducted by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991). All three samples were
drawn from undergraduate students in introductory business courses at a large
southeastern university. Data were collected on all relevant measures using an
online survey platform, which required all questions to be answered, thus elim-
inating problems of missing data. Construct question bundles were placed on sep-
arate pages and respondents clicked “proceed” to advance to each scale of items.
Item order was randomized on each page for each respondent to reduce order
effects that might otherwise occur, though construct order was maintained
throughout the survey to ensure proper location of the dependent variable.
Instructors e-mailed students the link to the survey and provided extra credit
for completion of the questionnaire. Respondents’ names were checked across
samples to ensure independence of the individual observations. Duplicate sub-
missions (n ⫽ 8) were purged and respondents who incorrectly answered a qual-
ity check question (n ⫽ 17) were disqualified. The quality check question asked
respondents not to respond to that specific question. This resulted in a final
usable sample of 741 respondents.
The first subsample consisted of 342 respondents who were asked to describe
their purchase behavior for home electronics, such as digital video recorders
(DVR), digital video disk (DVD) players, and plasma televisions. The second
subsample consisted of 213 respondents who were surveyed on their purchase
intentions for new music releases. The third subsample was made up of 191

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1119

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
respondents who were asked about their purchase attitudes and behaviors in
the domain of electronic handheld devices. The three samples are combined,
yielding a total of 741 respondents for the overall model analysis. The sample
is 57% female with a median age of 21. Caucasians comprise 73% of the sam-
ple, followed by African Americans at 12%, Hispanics at 9%, and Asians at 4%.

Measurements
Existing scales were adapted to measure innovativeness, self-congruence, per-
ceived risk, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in the three new product
consumption settings. The five scales each contain three items for a total of 15
items. All measures utilize a 7-point Likert scale or a 7-point semantic differ-
ential scale. The measures are respecified to correct for poorly loading reverse-
scored items. This allows for more accurate representation of the conceptual
status of the constructs (Grewal, Cote, & Baumgartner, 2004). The final model
consists of three items from Sirgy et al.’s (1997) self-image congruence scale,
two items from Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra’s (2005) behavioral inten-
tions scale, three items from Goldsmith and Hofacker’s (1991) domain specific
innovativeness scale, and two items from Van der Heijden, Verhagen, and
Creemers’ (2003) risk perception scale. The last-named scale is coded such that
higher values indicate more risk and less positive situations. All three items
from Zhu, Weimer, and Chen’s (2002) consumer satisfaction scale are retained.
All scales are included in the Appendix with items listed as retained or
dropped.
Examination of multiple industries necessitates measurement invariance
tests. This ensures that the measures are interpreted similarly in each of the
three industry contexts, adding to the robustness of the results. The first step
is to test configural invariance, whereby separate confirmatory factor analyses
(CFA) are run on the measures for each industry subsample. Comprehensive
measurement models are assessed, wherein all observed variables are forced to
load on their respective latent constructs. According to Steenkamp and
Baumgartner (1998), configural invariance is achieved when the model fits each
data set well, factor loadings are all significant, and discriminant validity is
achieved. The process of running CFAs prior to structural model testing is also
in keeping with the Anderson and Gerbing (1988) two-step procedure.
The comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) are adopted
to assess the fit of the measurement model to the data (Bentler, 1990; Bollen, 1989)
due to their consistency and ability to assess unique aspects of a model. CFI is
one of the most reliable incremental fit indices and is the most reported meas-
ure of fit in the literature (Bentler, 1990). TLI is also one of the more consistent
incremental fit indices (Bollen, 1989). The standardized root mean square resid-
ual (SRMR) is reported to account for the average difference between predicted
and observed variances and covariance in the model, based on standardized
residuals (Bentler, 1990). When analyzed in conjunction, CFI and TLI with val-
ues that approach 0.95 and an SRMR with a value less than or equal to 0.08 are
indicative of a model that is a good fit for the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Results of the CFAs indicate that the measurement models fit the data well
for the music industry (x2 ⫽ 166.5, df ⫽ 55; CFI ⫽ 0.98; TLI ⫽ 0.97; SRMR ⫽ 0.07),
the home entertainment industry (x2 ⫽ 112.6, df ⫽ 55; CFI ⫽ 1.00;
TLI ⫽ 0.99; SRMR ⫽ 0.04), and the handheld devices industry (x2 ⫽ 80.1,

1120 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
df ⫽ 55; CFI ⫽ 1.00; TLI ⫽ 0.99; SRMR ⫽ 0.04). The chi-square statistic is reported
for comparative purposes only, as it is known to be highly sensitive to sample
sizes over 200 (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988).
Construct reliability is established in accordance with Nunnally and
Bernstein (1994), with all construct reliabilities exceeding the 0.70 threshold.
Convergent validity is established by all items loading strongly and significantly
on their respective factors and each average variance extracted (AVE) for each
latent variable exceeding 0.50 (Fornell & Larker, 1981). This supports the sec-
ond requirement of configural invariance that all factor loadings be significant.
Each AVE meets or exceeds its respective shared variance between factors
(Fornell & Larker, 1981). This supports the discriminant validity requirement
of configural invariance. Complete results of the CFAs, including standardized
measurement coefficients, AVE, construct reliabilities, and correlations among
the latent factors, are provided in Table 2.
Metric invariance is the second requirement to ensure robustness of meas-
ures across industries. The first step in establishing metric invariance is to run
a baseline multi-group CFA to act as a benchmark against which fixed param-
eters are compared. The multi-group CFA fits the data well (x2 ⫽ 359.3, df ⫽
165; CFI ⫽ 0.99; TLI ⫽ 0.99; SRMR ⫽ 0.07). The second step is to fix one or more
paths across groups. Fixing all of the model paths results in a change in x2 ⫽
43.1 for a change of 16 degrees of freedom. This change exceeds the critical
value of 26.3. Full metric invariance is thus not supported. Full metric invari-
ance is an ideal to be sought, but not expected to be fully realized (Horn, 1991,
p. 125). Fixing at least two paths per construct yields a change in x2 ⫽ 10.4 for

Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Parameter Minimum
Music PR BI SAT SC INN AVE Estimates t-values
PR 0.74 0.38 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.59 0.69–0.84 6.2
BI ⫺0.62 0.70 0.25 0.34 0.36 0.54 0.73 9.2
SAT ⫺0.32 0.50 0.84 0.30 0.03 0.65 0.52–0.95 7.9
SC ⫺0.25 0.58 0.55 0.80 0.21 0.58 0.60–0.92 8.8
INN ⫺0.30 0.60 0.17 0.45 0.86 0.68 0.61–0.92 9.8
Home Entertainment
PR 0.75 0.24 0.23 0.15 0.11 0.62 0.57–0.96 6.5
BI ⫺0.49 0.78 0.40 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.75–0.85 14.5
SAT ⫺0.48 0.63 0.73 0.22 0.16 0.50 0.37–0.91 6.4
SC ⫺0.39 0.71 0.47 0.80 0.46 0.58 0.72–0.84 13.2
INN ⫺0.33 0.76 0.40 0.68 0.90 0.75 0.84–0.90 19.0
Handheld Devices
PR 0.75 0.22 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.60 0.71–0.84 5.2
BI ⫺0.47 0.81 0.56 0.31 0.53 0.68 0.73–0.91 11.2
SAT ⫺0.38 0.75 0.79 0.14 0.22 0.56 0.62–0.85 8.0
SC ⫺0.23 0.55 0.37 0.75 0.47 0.52 0.51–0.89 6.2
INN ⫺0.22 0.73 0.47 0.69 0.91 0.77 0.86–0.89 15.7
Note: All intercorrelations are significant at the p ⬍ 0.01 levels. Intercorrelations are shown in the lower tri-
angle of the matrix. Shared variances are shown in the upper triangle of the matrix. Composite reliabilities are
listed along the diagonal. INN ⫽ innovativeness, PR ⫽ perceived risk, SAT ⫽ satisfaction, SC ⫽ self-
congruity, BI ⫽ behavioral intention.

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1121

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 3. Structural Model Results.

Overall Home Handheld

Model Music Entertainment Devices

n 741 208 342 191

IN → SC 0.61a 0.41a 0.69a 0.72a
SC → SAT 0.42a 0.52a 0.50a 0.43a
IN → RISK ⫺0.20a ⫺0.23a ⫺0.17a ⫺0.07
SAT → RISK ⫺0.37a ⫺0.26a ⫺0.42a ⫺0.35a
RISK → BI ⫺0.23a ⫺0.40a ⫺0.11b ⫺0.20a
SAT → BI 0.30a 0.22a 0.31a 0.47a
IN → BI 0.51a 0.37a 0.48a 0.50a
SC → BI 0.08 0.14 0.19b 0.001
TLI 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99
CFI 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
SRMR 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.06
x2/df 185.1/57 168.2/57 118.9/57 91.4/57
R2 0.70 0.65 0.75 0.76
Notes: ap ⬍ 0.01, bp ⬍ 0.05, IN ⫽ innovativeness, SC ⫽ self-congruity, SAT ⫽ satisfaction, RISK ⫽ perceived
risk, BI ⫽ behavioral intentions.

a change of
10 degrees of freedom. This is well below the critical value of 18.31, indicating
partial metric invariance was achieved. Thus, the subsamples are combined
into a single sample for the remainder of the analysis.

RESULTS

The conceptual model, shown in Figure 1, is tested and the fit of the model is
assessed. Overall, the results of the structural test provide strong support for
the proposed model. Although the chi-square value is significant (x2 ⫽ 185.1,
df ⫽ 57), the other fit indices indicate that the model offered excellent fit to the
data (CFI ⫽ 1.00; TLI ⫽ 0.99; SRMR ⫽ 0.03). The results of the structural
analysis are listed in Table 3 along with individual industry results. The only
insignificant path in the model is from self-congruity to behavioral intentions.
This is not completely unexpected, as satisfaction likely mediates this rela-
tionship. This is consistent with Bagozzi (1992), with the impact of cognition on
behavior mediated by affect. In essence, self-congruence requires a cognitive
process of estimating a match between the image of a product user and that of
the self. The match can be good or bad, however. For instance, a consumer who
is not happy with his or her own image is apt to be dissatisfied when there is a
match with that of a product user image, as it highlights personal deficiency
(Sirgy, 1982). Thus, for self-image to have a positive impact on behavioral inten-
tion, the consumer should be satisfied with the match.
Mediation is tested via the procedures outlined in Baron and Kenny (1986).
The first of the four conditions for mediation is satisfied, as self-congruity (the
independent variable) affects satisfaction (the mediator) in both the overall model
(b ⫽ 0.42, p ⬍ 0.001) and each of the three industry subsamples
(bmusic ⫽ 0.52, p ⬍ 0.001; bhome entertainment ⫽ 0.51, p ⬍ 0.001; bhandheld devices ⫽ 0.43,

1122 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
p ⬍ 0.001). The second condition for mediation is also satisfied, as satisfaction
(the mediator) impacts behavioral intentions (the dependent variable) in both the
overall model (b ⫽ 0.33, p ⬍ 0.001) and in each of the three industry subsamples
(bmusic ⫽ 0.29, p ⬍ 0.001; bhome entertainment ⫽ 0.37, p ⬍ 0.001; bhandheld devices ⫽ 0.47,
p ⬍ 0.001). The third condition is satisfied, as self-congruity (the independent vari-
able) affects behavioral intentions (the dependent variable) when isolated from
the other variables in the model for both the overall model (b ⫽ 0.60, p ⬍ 0.001)
and the three industries individually (bmusic ⫽ 0.50, p ⬍ 0.001; bhome entertainment ⫽
0.70, p ⬍ 0.001; bhandheld devices ⫽ 0.57, p ⬍ 0.001). The fourth condition is satisfied
by the nonsignificance or reduction in significance of the direct path from self-
congruity (the independent variable) to behavioral intentions (the dependent
variable) when accounting for the indirect paths through satisfaction (the medi-
ator). Full mediation (nonsignificant) is found for the overall model (b ⫽ 0.60,
p ⬍ 0.001 → b ⫽ 0.08, p ⬎ 0.08), the music industry (b ⫽ 0.50, p ⬍ 0.001 → b ⫽
0.14, p ⬎ 0.13), and the handheld devices industry (b ⫽ 0.57, p ⬍ 0.001 →
b ⫽ 0.001, p ⬎ 0.99). Partial mediation (reduction in significance) is found for the
home entertainment industry (b ⫽ 0.70, p ⬍ 0.001 → b ⫽ 0.19, p ⬍ 0.05). Sobel’s
test for partial mediation is conducted (Kenny, Kasher, & Bolger, 1998), which
involves a Z-test analysis where a value of 1.96 indicates significance at the 0.05
level. The Z-test statistic for the mediation of the self-congruity to behavioral
intentions path is 45.94, which suggests partial mediation.
Results are fairly robust across the three industries, with two possible excep-
tions. First, the relationship between perceived risk and behavioral intentions
is much weaker in the home entertainment domain than in the music or hand-
held devices domains. This may be due to differences in perceptions of uncer-
tainty between the industries. New home entertainment products may be more
proven and consistently reliable than constantly changing music fads and
updates in handheld devices. In addition, frequency of music purchases or hand-
held device upgrading may simply increase recall of more risky purchases.
To test that the research model is in fact the best model, paths are first sys-
tematically added to the model and examined for increased fit. The criterion
for adding a path is a decrease in chi-square of 3.84 or more per 1 degree of
freedom (Byrne, 2001, pp. 114–115). This change suggests an improvement in
model fit that is unlikely the result of chance. Adding a single path to a nested
model decreases the degrees of freedom by 1 (Rigdon, 1994). The chi-square
value that corresponds to a 1 degree of freedom change at an alpha of 0.05 is
3.84 (Johnson & Wichern, 2002, p. 751). Thus, a decrease of 3.84 or more in chi-
square when a path is added to the model indicates a better model (Byrne, 2001,
pp. 114–115). Adding paths from innovativeness to satisfaction and self-congru-
ence to perceived risk does not reduce chi-square more than 1.0 with df⌬ ⫽ 1.
Removing any of the eight paths is deemed inappropriate, as all paths are sig-
nificant in the overall model and they are each justified by extant theory. Taken
together, these findings suggest that the research model is better than any other
model that might include these five constructs.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this study is to deepen the understanding of new prod-
uct purchase behaviors by considering how approach and avoidance mecha-

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1123

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 H6: ⫹
0.42a
(10.12)
Self-Congruity Satisfaction H7: ⫹
0.30a
H3: ⫹ H2: ⫹ (7.46)
0.61a .08
(15.56) (1.75)

Behavioral
Innovativeness Intention
H1: ⫹ H8: ⫺
0.51a ⫺0.37a
(11.23) (⫺8.67)
H 5: ⫺ H4: ⫺
⫺0.20a ⫺0.23a
(⫺4.74) (⫺5.31)
Perceived Risk

Notes: Path coefficients are listed beneath each hypothesis number. T-values are listed beneath
each path coefficient.a Values are significant at p ⬍ 0.001.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model and Results.

nisms drive consumers toward or away from new products. Within this frame-
work the authors seek to clarify the relationships between the approach mech-
anisms (consumer innovativeness, self-congruence, and satisfaction), avoidance
mechanisms (perceived risk), and the outcome variable of behavioral intentions.
The results of the empirical test suggest that the consumer decision-making
process for new purchases is best modeled as a complex system that integrates
both direct and indirect effects on behavioral intentions. All hypotheses are sup-
ported, which suggests that the research model appropriately describes the
nomological network surrounding consumer innovativeness and purchase inten-
tions for new products. Specifically, evidence is produced that innovativeness,
self-congruence, and satisfaction spurred behavioral intentions, while perceived
risk degraded them. This emphasizes the practical significance of each con-
struct as a driver or detractor of new product purchases as well as the need to
embrace a more inclusive perspective of the existing body of work.
There are a host of significant indirect effects in addition to the direct effects
that provide insight as to how approach and avoidance mechanisms impact each
other en route to behavioral intentions. A primary contribution of this research
is the discovery of a positive relationship between innovativeness and
self-congruence. The direction of this relationship suggests that the image
surrounding new product purchases is an important aspect of innovativeness.
Several previously analyzed indirect linkages are also supported in this combined
framework, which strengthens their nomological and predictive validity. Higher
levels of satisfaction are related to lower levels of perceived risk, higher levels
of self-congruence are related to higher levels of satisfaction, and higher
levels of innovativeness are related to lower levels of perceived risk.

1124 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
CONCLUSION

This research makes several substantial contributions. The primary contribution

is the inclusion of the self-congruence construct within the realm of new product
purchases. The relationship between innovativeness and self-congruence sug-
gests that being an innovator helps direct part of a consumer’s self-concept.
New products can thus play an important role in construction of self-image and
can be used to define and exhibit the innovative aspect of one’s personality. This
represents a major contribution to both managers and researchers.
Self-congruence is heavily utilized in value-expressive promotions to
induce purchasing (Chang, 2005a). Findings suggest that attracting innovators
and leveraging their tendency to facilitate the diffusion of innovation can be
accomplished by focusing more on the image creation aspects (i.e., value expres-
sive) of new products as opposed to a more utilitarian approach. In the utilitar-
ian approach, functional- and performance-related attributes are the focus,
whereas the image creation approach focuses on building a personality and image
for the brand (Ogilvy, 1963). An image creation approach for new products could
transcend the simple novelty of a new product to a message that inspires both
affective responses and cognitive reflection. The implication is that managers
can improve results by carefully managing the relationship between their respec-
tive brands and the meanings that consumers associate with those brands, like
images of being modern, unique, and expert (Jamal & Goode, 2001).
Scholars should also recognize the unique contribution of self-congruence
and examine it in conjunction with innovativeness in future studies of new prod-
uct purchases. In this way, a more comprehensive understanding of the origins
and mechanisms of innovativeness may be developed. Further, this research
addresses an existing gap in the nomological network within which innova-
tiveness operates. A network of approach and avoidance mechanisms is sup-
ported by this model. It is clear from the model that self-congruence, perceived
risk, and satisfaction lend considerable explanation to the innovativeness and
purchase intentions relationship (R2behavioral intentions ⫽ 0.70). Future research
should continue to explore other possible constructs—especially those that may
moderate or mediate the relationships proposed here.
Like any research effort, this study has limitations. The use of a student
sample may limit the generalizability of the results to nonstudent populations.
However, since the purpose of this study was to examine the relationships
between and among variables, and not to make point and interval estimates of
their particular levels, this is not an overwhelming concern (Calder, Phillips, &
Tybout, 1981). Future research should attempt to replicate the findings and
improve external validity.

REFERENCES

Agustin, C. O., & Singh, J. (2005). Curvilinear effects of consumer loyalty determinants
in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 96–109.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behav-
ior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1125

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market
share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53–66.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178–204.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Barrick, M. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Stewart, G. L. (2003). Situational and motivational
influences on trait-behavior relationships. In M. R. Barrick, & A. Ryan (Eds.), Per-
sonality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 60–82).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Sci-
ence, 15, 215–27.
Bennett, P. D., & Harrell, G. D. (1975). The role of confidence in understanding and pre-
dicting buyers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 2,
110–118.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238–246.
Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size
effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256–259.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, appli-
cations, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for applica-
tions. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197–207.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Themes and issues in the self-regulation of behav-
ior. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition, (Vol. 12, pp. 1–80) Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Action, emotion and personality:
Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
741–751.
Chang, C. (2005a). Ad self-congruency effects: Self-enhancing cognitive and affective
mechanisms. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 887–910.
Chang, C. (2005b). The moderating influence of ad framing for ad-self congruency effects.
Psychology & Marketing, 22, 955–968.
Childers, T. L. (1986). Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion leader-
ship scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 184–188.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68.
Crum, R. (2007). iPhone launch draws long lines, heavy forecasts. Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/apples-iphone-
launch-draws-long/story.aspx?guid⫽%7B38674912-77BB-4AE3-8166-664BDD135547%
7D&dist⫽hplatest.
Dahm, L. (2002). Secrets of success: The strategies driving new product development at
Kraft. Stagnito’s New Products Magazine, 1, 18–19.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework,
Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 85–116.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduc-
tion to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fitzmaurice, J. (2005). Incorporating consumers’ motivations into the theory of reasoned
action. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 911–929.

1126 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Fleck, N. D., & Quester, P. (2007). Birds of a feather flock together . . . definition, role and
measure of congruence: An application to sponsorship. Psychology & Marketing, 24,
975–1000.
Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Eastman, J. K. (1996). Opinion leaders and opinion seek-
ers: Two new measurement scales. Marketing Science, 24, 137–147.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Foxall, G. R., Bhate, S. (1991). Cognitive style, personal involvement and situation as
determinants of computer use. Technovation, 11, 183–199.
Garbarino, E. C., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70–87.
Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). Using the domain specific innovativeness scale to identify inno-
vative Internet consumers. Internet Research, 11, 149–158.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness.
Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 19, 209–221.
Goldsmith, R. E., Flynn, E. R., & Goldsmith, E. B. (2003). Innovative consumers and
market mavens. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11, 54–64.
Gray, J. A. (1994). Personality dimensions and emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J.
Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 329–331).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement
error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Academy of Mar-
keting Science Journal, 23, 519–529.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Batra, R. (2004). When corporate image affects product evaluations:
The moderating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 197–207.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94, 319–340.
Hirschman, E. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal
of Consumer Research, 7, 283–295.
Horn, J. L. (1991). Comments on issues in factorial invariance. In L. Collins & J. Horn
(Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change (pp. 55–61). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model-
ing, 6, 1–55.
Jamal, A., & Goode, M. (2001). Consumers and brands: A study of the impact of self-
congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
19, 482–492.
Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.
Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20–31.
Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 5th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology.
In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(pp. 233–265). New York: McGraw-Hill and Oxford University Press.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.
Klerck, D., & Sweeney, J. C. (2007). The effect of knowledge types on consumer-
perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods. Psychology & Marketing, 24,
171–193.

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1127

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Kramer, T., & Yoon, S. (2007). Approach-avoidance motivation and the use of affect as infor-
mation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 128–139.
Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfac-
tion, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service
context. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 32, 293–311.
Lee, G., & Lin, H. (2005). Customer perceptions of e-service quality in online shopping.
International Journal of Retail Distribution Management, 33, 161–176.
Lee, H., & Huddleston, P. (2006). Effects of e-tailer and product type on risk handling in
online shopping. Journal of Marketing Channels, 13, 5–12.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Bass, F. M. (1990). New product diffusion models in market-
ing: A review and directions for research. Journal of Marketing, 5, 1–26.
Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and
the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 329–345.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspec-
tive. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confir-
matory factor analysis: The effect of sample size, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measure-
ment. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 229–242.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 18–30.
Ogilvy, D. (1963). Confessions of an advertising man. London: Southbank Publishing.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-s-qual: A multiple-item
scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Services Research, 7,
213–233.
Park, C., & Jun, J. K. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of Internet buying behavior:
Effects of Internet usage, perceived risks, and innovativeness. International Mar-
keting Review, 20, 534–553.
Park, J., Lennon, S. L., & Stoel, L. (2005). On-line product presentation: Effects on mood,
perceived risk, and purchase intention. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 695–719.
Pennings, J. M. E., & Smidts, A. (2000). Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude.
Management Science, 46, 1337–1348.
Powers, W. T., (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
Quester, P. G., Karunaratna, A., & Goh, L. K. (2000). Self-congruity and product evalu-
ation: A cross-cultural study. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 525–535.
Rigdon, E. (1994). Calculating degrees of freedom for structural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 274–278.
Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and mar-
ket share. Journal of Retailing, 69, 193–215.
Ruvio, A. (2008). Unique like everybody else? The dual role of consumers’ need for unique-
ness. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 444–464.
Ruvio, A., & Shoham, A. (2007). Innovativeness, exploratory behavior, market mavenship,
and opinion leadership: An empirical examination in the Asian context. Psychology &
Marketing, 24, 703–722.
Sääkjärvi, M., & Lampinen, M. (2005). Consumer perceived risk in successive product
generations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8, 145–156.
Schwartz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions
of affective states. In E.T. Higgins & R. Sorrrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation
and cognition: Foundation of social behavior (pp. 527–561). New York: Guilford Press.
Sethi, R., Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (2001). Cross-functional product development
teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of
Marketing Research, 38, 73–85.

1128 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Shohom, A., & Ruvio, S. (2008). Opinion leaders and followers: A replication and exten-
sion. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 280–297.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9, 287–300.
Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation.
Journal of Business Research, 13, 195–206.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. J., Park J., Chon, K., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J. S.,
& Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods measuring self-
image congruence. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 25, 229–241.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level
in exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 434–449.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance
in cross-national consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.
Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers’ purchase intentions.
Journal of Retailing, 70, 163–178.
Thorbjørnsen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Nysveen, H. (2007). “This is who I am”: Identity
expressiveness and the theory of planned behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 24,
763–785.
Van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003). Understanding online purchase
intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European Journal
of Information Systems, 12, 41–48.
Walchli, S. B. (2007). The effects of between-partner congruity on consumer evaluation
of co-branded products. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 947–973.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.
Zhu, F. X., Wymer, Jr., W., & Chen, I. (2002). IT-based services and service quality in
consumer banking. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13, 69–90.

The authors thank Michael Brady for guidance and insight on the development of the
research design and manuscript. Furthermore, the authors gratefully acknowledge Peter
Darke, Ron Goldsmith, and Michael Hartline for helpful comments on the manuscript.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Kelly O. Cowart, Florida State
University, Department of Marketing, Rovetta Business Annex, P.O. Box 3061110,
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110 (koc05@fsu.edu).

INNOVATIVENESS AND SELF-CONGRUENCE 1129

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
APPENDIX

Scale Items
Innovativeness (scaling from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” on a 7-point
scale):

1. In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy the latest

music (home entertainment products) when it appears.*
2. In general, I am the first in my circle of friends to know the names of the
latest music (home entertainment products) on the market.*
3. I know more about the latest music (home entertainment products) before
other people do.*
Risk (scaling from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” on a 7-point scale):
How would you characterize the decision to buy the latest music (home enter-
tainment products)?

1. “Very small risk” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Very Big Risk”

2. “High Potential for Loss” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “High Potential for Gain”*
3. “A Very Negative Situation” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “A Very Positive Situation”*
Self-Congruence (scaling from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” on a
7-point scale):

1. People similar to me own the latest music (home entertainment products).*

2. I can identify with people who prefer the latest music to older music (home
entertainment products).*
3. The image of a typical user of the latest music (home entertainment prod-
ucts) is highly consistent with how I see myself.*
Satisfaction (scaling from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” on a 7-point scale):
1. I am satisfied with the music (home entertainment products) that has
been coming out lately.*
2. I expect to continue to be satisfied with the latest music (home enter-
tainment products) in the future.*
3. I am more satisfied with older music than recent music (home entertain-
ment products).*
Behavioral Intention (scaling from “not at all likely” to “very likely” on a 7-point
scale):

1. How likely are you to recommend the latest music (home entertainment
products) to friends?
2. How likely are you to continue to buy the latest music (home entertain-
ment products) for years to come?*
3. How likely are you to say positive things about the latest music (home
entertainment products) to others?*
* Retained.

1130 COWART, FOX, AND WILSON

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar