The Influence of Referral Friends and
The Effect of Social Comparison Tendency
In Consumer Brand Evaluation
Yeshika Alversia
1739808
Master Thesis
Written as partial fulfillment of the requirement for obtaining The Degree of Master of Science in Business AdministrationMarketing Specialization, Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
August 2008
Supervisor 1: Dr. Debra Trampe
Supervisor 2: Dr. Wander Jager
Management Summary
Based on the concept of reference groups, where the primary group is considered the most influencing group, the author would like to specify the influence of a particular friend who has a relatively strong influence on individuals’ brand evaluation. The term “referral friend” was used for describing this particular type of friend. The term referral friend here means that someone from the primary group -a friend with whom an individual interacts with in daily activities- usually in informal groups, who could have an influence on an individual in a buying decision, in this case more specifically in clothing brand evaluation influence. The author believed that the type of influencers (a referral friend or not) would have a significant effect in influencing the consumers’ brand evaluation.
Furthermore, since there are individual differences between every people, the author also believed that it is important to include one of these differences as the factor that also contributes in consumers’ decision making. The individual difference discussed in this study, specifically, was the difference in social comparison tendency. Why is it important? Most people have a need to evaluate themselves by comparing themselves to others. People are engage in social comparison in their daily lives; they do the comparison every day and often without realizing it. Moreover, in interaction with other people in groups, individuals often use reference group as a benchmark to measure their own behaviors, opinions, abilities, and possessions.
In these two studies, the product category was limited only to “clothing” to make it narrow, with the assumption that clothing was a good representation of Publicly Consumed Good based on the Bearden and Etzel classification, which in a way can be a “necessity product” (everybody must wear clothes) but in a same way can be seen as the tools to show someone’s social status (luxury product).
In the first study, the correlation between a person who had a relatively strong tendency to engage in social comparison with reference group influence and with having a referral friend has been studied. Furthermore, in the second study, an experiment focused on the causal relation between the tendency to engage in social comparison and being influenced by a referral friend in clothing brand evaluation.
The result of Study 1 showed that there were correlations between social comparison tendency, reference group influence (particularly normative and value-expressive), and referral friend influence. Also, as the result of Study 2, two main effects have been revealed. First, self activation (as the main antecedent of social comparison) had a significant effect in influencing consumer’s brand evaluation; that is, when the self was activated, people would be more influenced by others than when the self was not activated, resulting relatively more positive evaluation of the brand, with respect to clothing brand. Second, the type of influencer (referral friend or not) also had a significant effect in influencing consumers’ brand evaluation, that is, a referral friend would have a stronger influence on consumers’ brand evaluation than influence from another (non referral) friend.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
How time passes by, my one-year master study in the Netherlands comes to end. I thank all of my teachers in the University of Groningen very much; they provide me the ability of learning and enthusiasm of keeping learning. Their teaching have indeed contributed a whole new knowledge to me. I am very satisfied with what I have obtained within the past year in the Netherlands, by which my experience is enriched and horizon is broadened. It will certainly be one of the best memorable moments of my life.
My genuine appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Debra Trampe, my thesis supervisor, who has guided me all the way through the creation of this master thesis. Her positive criticisms, which always been very supportive, made me work harder and through which I came to learn a lot. To Dr. Wander Jager, the second supervisor of this thesis, thank you, especially for the influence you have given to me at the first place (even without you realized it) so I get interested in the consumer behavior
study.
I can not thank you enough to all my friends; all the "PPIGW members", who have been my family during my stay here in the Netherlands, and have brightened my life. Thank you to Maria for helping me out with the SPSS, to my roommate (and also always classmate) Wulan, for sharing all the happiness and stories. Thank you to my classmate Jorinde who has helped me in translating the questionnaire into Dutch. To my understanding husband, Novar Imran, who has been the pillar of support through the year of my study. Thank you for the wings when I wanted to fly. And to my little sunshine, baby boy Tristan Ramadhan, who patiently waits for his bunda to come back. I love you both so much.
To my beloved mother, thank you for keep praying, and my father who has always been very supportive for all my life. Without you both, I might not be able to get through all of these. To my beautiful sisters, Nanda and Dea, who have been my inspirations, all the best for you girls.
Table of Contents
Management Summary………..2
Acknowledgments….………..4
I. Introduction………..…..………..6
II. Theoretical Background……….………..………...7
III. Current Research……….………..………..12
III.1. Study1………….………...….………..……13
Hypotheses for Study 1……….………...………..…………13
Method.……….………...…… …………..…14
Participants……….……..……….…….14
Procedure………..…………..……….…...14
Results……….……….……15
Part One – Social Comparison Orientation…………..………..15
Part Two – Reference Group Influence……….……….16
Part Three – Referral Friend Influence………...……....17
Correlation between Factors………...………….....17
Conclusion of Study 1………....19
Discussion: Characteristics of the Referral Friends and Upward Social Comparison………...…….20
III.2. Study 2………..………...….…22
Hypotheses for Study 2………..…………....25
Method……….……….26
Participants & Design………...….…26
Material & Procedure………..………...27
Results & Discussion………..……28
IV. General Discussion………..………30
Summary of Findings………..….…………30
The Power of Referral Friend………...30
The Social Comparison Effect………..………..………..30
Managerial Implications………..….31
Limitations and Directions for Further Research………..………...32
Participants………..……….…32
The manipulation of referral friend situation………...32
V. References………..……..35
Appendix 1: Questionnaire of Study 1: English Version………...38
Appendix 2: Questionnaire of Study 1: Dutch Version………..………..41
The Influence of Referral Friends and the Effect of
Social Comparison Tendency in Consumer Brand Evaluation
I. Introduction
We can not live alone. This statement is most likely to be true for most human beings in this world. In many of our activities in daily life, we always get in touch and interact with other people. These interactions also affect people in being influenced by others in many aspects. Moreover, in the human brain system, the need for social involvement is in fact existent in our limbic system. Being interacted with family, being accepted by others, and the need for affection are the examples of basic human needs related to social heuristics. Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs theory explicitly mentioned social needs as the part of basic human needs. Furthermore, Max-Neef (1991) has also classified nine basic human needs; the need for subsistence, protection, affection, participation, understanding, leisure, identity, creation and freedom, where the needs for affection, participation, understanding and leisure are all closely related with the need for social involvement.
As the part of interaction with others, people are then influenced by their environment as well. The influences may come from the family, close friends, culture, or even from a perfect stranger on television. One of the aspects where people get influenced by others is when people as consumers make a buying or purchasing decision.Input from other people with whom consumers identify and aspire to emulate enhances credibility about product and retail choices while also stimulating the trial and adoption of new products (Blackwell et al. 2007). The term word-of-mouth has become popular and is considered as one of the most powerful marketing strategies.
been raised in the same environment, studying at the same school, having a similar group of friends, may have a very different attitude toward one specific object, due the their individual differences. For example, one prefers to have her room painted in pink, and the other prefers to have it painted in yellow. Moreover, besides these individual differences and the environmental influences, the other factor affecting consumers’ decision making are the psychological processes underlying the behavior (Blackwell et al. 2007). For example, how the attitude and/or behavior may change depend on the information processing (e.g., seeing an ad and processing the information from ad through the central or peripheral route) or what kind of thoughts are accessible at the time the stimulus is encountered (e.g., seeing an ad with beautiful slim model will have a different effect when thoughts about self are cognitively accessible or not).
II. Theoretical Background
In consumers’ decision making, people are very often being influenced by their reference group, which can be defined as any person or group of people who significantly influences an individual’s behavior (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). The values, attitudes, behaviors and norms of this group are perceived to have relevance for the evaluations, behaviors, and aspirations of another individual (Park & Lessig, 1977). Marketers have generally accepted the reference group construct as important in some types of consumer decision making. Many companies started a Viral Marketing campaign because they realize how powerful the effects of spreading (good) messages through people can be.
Park and Lessig in their study (1977) have identified three types of reference group influences; information, utilitarian and value-expressive influences. Informational influence is based on the desire to make informed decisions. This most likely happens when an individual is faced with uncertainty and seeks information. From many sources available to gain information, the most likely to be accepted are those viewed as credible. The reference groups with high credibility include those assumed to be experts or a very close family member / friends. An individual may use an informational reference group in two different ways. One is to actively search for information from opinion leaders or from a group with the appropriate expertise. Second, the individual makes an inference by observing the behavior of significant others.
The second type of influence, utilitarian (or normative) reference group influence, is reflected in attempts to comply with the wishes of others to achieve rewards or avoid punishments. If an individual feels that certain types of behavior will result in rewards or punishments from others and these outcomes are viewed as important, he or she will find it useful to meet the expectation of these significant others.
The third type, value-expressive influence, is characterized by the need for psychological association with a person or group and is reflected in the acceptance of positions expressed by others. This influence relates to a person’s motive to enhance or support his/her self-concept. This association can take two forms. One form is an attempt to be like the reference group. The person will behave or react in order to be like the member of reference group. The second type flows from an attachment or liking for the group. The individual is responsive to the reference group out of a feeling for it. It means that the individual does not necessarily want to be like the reference group, but they get influenced by the group because they admire the group.
observe parental consumption behavior (Park & Lessig, 1977). Furthermore, as Feltham studied in 1998, when people grow up, become teenagers and young adults, the primary reference group that influence them most then shift to their peer groups or friends.
Previous studies have shown that there are positive correlations between the reference group and the brand choice of consumers. The pioneer study on purchase-related influences of reference groups was conducted by Francis Bourne (1957). He proposed that the reference group influence will be stronger for those products and brands that are more conspicuous - that is, more socially visible. Moreover, he proposed that there are two dimensions of conspicuousness: exclusivity and public visibility. The first dimension means, if everyone owns and uses a product, then the ownership and use of that product has no exclusivity. Therefore, there will be no basis for being concerned about others’ opinions on it. The second dimension, visibility, is critical because a product or service has to be visible and identifiable in order for reference group member to see it.
Based on Bourne’s study, Bearden and Etzel (1982) updated the study in the basis by which reference group influence would be strong or weak for a given decision - product ownership and brand choice. The two bases offered by Bearden and Etzel are: (1) whether the product is a luxury or a necessity; and (2) whether the product is consumed publicly or privately. Their research showed reference group influence on the product ownership decision to be stronger for products considered to be luxury items and on those brand decisions for products that are consumed in public. These two dichotomies of luxury/necessity and public/private both refine and strengthen Bourne's view that conspicuousness is the dominant product-related factor promoting strong reference group relevance and possible influence attempts.
a product consumed in public view that virtually everyone owns (e.g. shoes, wristwatch). (3) Privately consumed luxury, a product consumed out of public view and not commonly owned or used (e.g. jacuzzi), and (4) privately consumed necessity, a product consumed out of public view that virtually everyone owns (e.g. mattress). For the public goods, the influence of reference groups in choosing a particular brand will be stronger than for the privately goods.
The study of Bearden and Etzel (1982) only considered the product-related factor, but did not include another important factor; the consumer behavior itself. As mentioned before, I believe that the individual differences and the psychological processing of consumers will also be important factors whether the reference group will influence the consumers’ brand choice decision or not. One of the constructs which I consider important in influencing the consumers’ brand choice decision is people’s tendencies to compare with others – the social comparison tendencies.
Most people have a need to evaluate themselves by comparing themselves to others. In interaction with other people in groups, individuals use reference group as a benchmark to measure their own behaviors, opinions, abilities, and possessions. People do the comparison every day in their daily lives and often without realizing it. Gilbert, Giesler, and Morris (1995) suggested that the process of social comparison is "spontaneous, effortless, and unintentional" and "relatively automatic". Comparison is not only limited to groups or persons with whom we have personal contact. A superstar we watch in a movie, a beautiful model in a magazine, or a politician showing up on television can be a source of social comparison. For example, many women in this world feel an increased dissatisfaction with their own bodies because of being bombarded with a beautifully slim image of professional models (Richins, 1991).
ourselves with others. Self uncertainty is the inverse of self confidence. When individuals are not confident (or uncertain) about their opinions and/or their abilities, they will compare themselves with others, about how others are thinking or doing in the similar circumstance, to evaluate their own situation. In Festinger’s study, the primary question to be asked with respect to abilities is “how am I doing?”, while for opinions the issue is more about “what should I think or feel?” Moreover, Gibbons and Buunk (1999) concluded in their study that most of the factors found to be instigators of social comparison involve uncertainty about the self.
As far as I know, none or very limited research has been conducted to study the relation between the reference group influence, social comparison, and the consumer’s brand evaluation. I believe that it is important to include social comparison in relation to the reference group influence because there is a difference in individual in the extent of the tendency to compare themselves to others. I also believe that the psychological stimulus, whether the self is activated or not, together with individual difference will lead to a different effect of reference group influences. Moreover, the type of influencers will also have a significant effect in influencing the consumers’ brand evaluation. Therefore, the central research question for this study is as following:
To what extent do the social comparison tendency and the reference group influence a consumer’s brand evaluation?
III. Current Research
Based on the concept of reference group, where the primary group is considered as the most influencing group, I would like to specify the influence of a particular friend(s) who has a relatively strong influence in individual’s purchasing decision, more specifically in the brand choice decision. I will use the term “referral friend” for this particular type of friend. The term referral friend(s) here means that someone from the primary group, a friend with whom an individual interacts with in daily activities, usually in informal groups, who could have an influence on an individual in a buying decision, in this case more specifically in brand evaluation influence.
I will limit the product category only to “clothing brand” to make it narrow, with the assumption that clothing is a good representation of Publicly Consumed Good based on the Bearden and Etzel classification, which in a way can be a “necessity product” (everybody must wear clothes) but in a same way can be seen as the tools to show someone’s social status (luxury product).
a stronger tendency to compare themselves with others, will more likely to look up to their referral friends than people who have weaker tendency.
In the first study, the correlation between a person who has a stronger tendency to engage in social comparison with reference group influence and having a referral friend(s) will be studied. Furthermore, in the second study, I will focus on the causal relation between the tendency to engage in social comparison and being influenced by a referral friend in the brand evaluation.
III.1. Study 1
Based on the study of Gibbons and Buunk (1998), in order to measure individual differences in the extent to which people engage in social comparison, a scale called Social Comparison Orientation (SCO) has been developed. People who have a high score in this SCO scale are more likely to have a higher tendency to compare themselves to others. In a series of studies, Gibbons and Buunk have demonstrated that SCO scores are very good proxies for actual social comparison tendencies.
In this study, I am interested in the correlation between social comparison, represented by higher score of SCO scale, with the reference group influence and the brand choice of clothes.
Hypotheses for Study 1:
H1a: There is a positive correlation between strong social comparison tendency and being influenced by the reference group, with respect to brand evaluation of clothing.
H1b: There is a positive correlation between strong social comparison tendency and having a referral friend(s), with respect to brand evaluation of clothing.
Method Participants
Fifty students of the University of Groningen, consisting of 25 international students (12 males, 13 females) and 25 Dutch students (13 males, 12 females) were selected randomly. Age ranges between 20-28 years, with the average age is 23.28 years (SD = 1.96).
Procedure
A questionnaire consisted of a comparison orientation measure distributed in fifty students. There were two version of language, the English version for the international students (see appendix 1), and the Dutch version for Dutch students (see appendix 2). The questionnaire consisted of three parts. Part one with 11 questions included the scale of Social Comparison Orientation (SCO) from Gibbons and Buunk, with the purpose to find out how often respondents engage in social comparison. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Some sample items of the SCO scale are “I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how others do thing”, “I often like to talk with others about mutual opinions and experiences”, and “If I want to learn more about something, I try to find out what others think about it” (for further information, see Gibbons & Buunk, 1999, p.142)
utilitarian influence; and “I feel that the purchase of a particular brand of clothes helps me show others what I am, or would like to be” for the value-expressive influence.
Part three consisted of 7 questions of a 7-point Likert scale, and 8 items of Dichotomous scale (yes/no) were used to describe the referral friends. This part was constructed to find out the influence of the referral friends to the evaluations of clothing brands. Some sample items regarding this referral friend influence are “I have friends whom I consider are better than me in the way they dress”, “I would like to buy clothes of the brand that my friends wear” and “My clothing brand choices are influenced by the clothes that my friends wear”. To describe the referral friends, I included 8 items which were: pretty/handsome, generally smart, academically smart, wealthy, popularity, having more friends, organizationally active, and socially active.
Then the correlation between the score of SCO with the reference group influence and the tendency of having a referral friend, with a specification in the brand evaluation of clothing, is computed.
Results
Based on the questionnaire which consists of three parts, I will describe the results in three parts.
Part One – Social Comparison Orientation
Table 1: Statistics of Social Comparison Orientation (SCO) score by Nationality and Gender (Scale from 1 to 7)
Participants Male Female Combined International Students M 4.74 4.7 4.72 SD .64 .72 .67 N 13 12 25 Dutch Students M 4.5 5.08 4.76 SD .81 .47 .69 N 12 13 25
Two factors emerged through factor analysis. The first factor is based on the group of question 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 related to the comparison of ability; and the second factor based on the group of question 1,7,8,9 and10, which related to the comparison of opinion. This result is consistent with the original findings of Buunk and Gibbons.
Part Two – Reference Group Influence
The second part of the questionnaire, which measured the influence of reference group, was divided to three factors with respect to the type of influences; (informational, utilitarian, and value-expressive). The overall cronbach’s alpha for this part is .88, mean = 3.30, with minimum score is 2.52, and maximum is 4.40, SD = .58. No significant difference between International and Dutch students, as well as between male and female participants, both Fs<1. Therefore the gender and nationality difference will not be discussed further.
Table 2. Statistics of Reference Group Influence Score (scale from 1 to 7)
Informational Utilitarian Value Expressive
M 3.08 3.03 3.72
SD 1.05 1.18 1.32
Part Three – Referral Friend Influence
The third part of the questionnaire is the scale for measuring the influence of referral friend, so it is more specific than the influence of reference group in general. Moreover, it is also more specific to the influence of referral friend for an individual in choosing a brand of clothes. Seven questions were measured and averaged into a single index as the overall score of referral friend influence. Cronbach’s alpha = .90, mean = 4.04, (max = 7, min = 1.43), SD = 1.22.
Again, there is no significant difference between gender and nationality of the participants, both Fs<1.
Correlation between Factors
I calculated correlation using Pearson Correlation between the five factors (SCO, informational influence, utilitarian influence, value-expressive influence, and referral friends influence, see Table 3 below). There is a significant correlation between SCO score with two type on influences; utilitarian and value expressive, where the correlation is positive (r = .31, p < .05 and r = .38, p < .01, respectively). Therefore, H1a is partly accepted. It is only partial because the significant correlation only occurred in the utilitarian and value expressive, but not in the informational influence. This is not as I expected before, whereas I expected the correlation will be significant for all three types of influences.
distribution (college students age) apparently has significant contributions to the likeliness of being more susceptible to value-expressive reference group influence, due to the frequency of informal social contacts between students, the intensity of peer pressure on one's choice behavior, the visibility of social approval in a group, and the rigidity of the group structure in which they interact.
While the reason why the informational influence in this study has no significant correlation with the social comparison tendency, I assume this occurred due to the characteristic of the product in question (clothing). As we know, clothing is a relatively less complex product compare to, for example, computer, camera, or hand phone. People tend to search for more information whenever the product is relatively has more complex attribute. On the other hand, people are generally familiar with clothing, they buy it frequently. Therefore, the level of uncertainty when buying clothing is relatively low. As discussed earlier, one of the main factors found to be instigators of social comparison is uncertainty. That is why no significant correlation exists between social comparison tendency and informational influence in this study. Also, this result seems to be understandable if we see the questionnaire (see appendix 1, Part Two of the questionnaire). The statements related to the informational influence were more likely relevant to a high-involvement and more complex product. For example, “I seek information about various brands of clothing from an association of professionals or independent group of experts” or “I seek information from those who work with clothing as a profession (e.g. fashion designer, fashion stylist)”. These statements usually more applicable when the characteristics of the product are more complex, therefore the need for searching for information is higher than the less complex product such as clothing.
Another result, there is a significant correlation between SCO score and having referral friends influence, where the correlation is also positive (r = .40, p < .01). Therefore, H1b is accepted. We can conclude that people who have more tendencies to engage in social comparison are more likely to have referral friend(s) with respect to clothing, and more likely to be influenced by his/her referral friend(s), relative to those people who have less tendencies.
There is also a positive significant correlation between all types of reference group influence (informational, utilitarian, and value expressive) and referral friends influence (r = .41, .76, .63, respectively, all p<.01). Therefore, H1c is accepted. We may conclude that people who have more tendencies to engage in reference group influence - whether the influences are informational, utilitarian, or value expressive - are more likely to be influenced by their referral friends, with respect to brand of clothes.
Table 3: Correlation between SCO, Reference Group Influence, and Referral Friend Influence SCO Informational Influence Utilitarian Influence Value-Exp Influence Referral Friend Influence SCO 1 .07 .31* .38** .40 ** Informational Influence .07 1 .41** .51** .41 ** Utilitarian Influence .31* .41** 1 .72** .76** Value-Exp Influence .38** .51** .72** 1 .63** Referral Friend Influence .40 ** .41 ** .76** .63** 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Conclusion of Study 1
influences in evaluating brands of clothes. Another finding is that these people also have someone in their reference group -we call a referral friend- who also contributes in influence their brand evaluation in clothing, where all types of reference group influence (informational, utilitarian, and value expressive) are applicable.
Discussion
Characteristics of the Referral Friends and Upward Social Comparison From the last eight questions in part three, we can infer the characteristic of the referral friends. According to the result, the characteristics of the referral friend that described by participants are: wealthier (68%), prettier (66%) and more popular (64%). Most of the respondents described the referral friends as not smarter then them, academically or generally (result in table 4)
Table 4: Characteristics of Referral Friend
Characteristics Yes No 1. Prettier 33 66% 17 34% 2. Generally smarter 7 14% 43 86% 3. Academically smarter 10 20% 40 80% 4. Wealthier 34 68% 16 32% 5. More popular 32 64% 18 36%
6. Has more friends 24 48% 26 52% 7. More organizationally active 22 44% 28 56% 8. More socially active 21 42% 29 58%
Additionally, Buunk et al. (1990) proposed that although an upward comparison may serve the purpose of evaluation more readily than a downward one, and a downward comparison may more readily serve the function of self-enhancement, each may not necessarily have this effect. Learning that another is better off than you are provides at least two pieces of information: (a) that you are not as well off as others and (b) that it is possible for you to be better than you are at present. Those who focus on the positive aspect of this information may feel better about themselves as a result of an upward comparison, while those who focus on the negative aspect may feel worse. Conversely, learning that another is worse off than yourself also provides at least two pieces of information: (a) that you are not as badly off as others and (b) that it is possible for you to get worse. If an individual focusing on the fact that he/she is better off than others, it may lead him/her to feel better about him/herself as a result of a downward comparison, but focusing on the possibility of getting worse may produce negative feelings about him/herself. Therefore, how individuals feel in response to the information that another person is better off or worse off than themselves may depend on how individuals interpret the information.
On the other hand, the two characteristics of the referral friends - where the friends are more likely inferior then the individuals - are “not smarter, generally and academically”. In this case, we can not say that the participants engage in the downward comparison because we did not compare them, for instance, in their GPA or exam result. It would be different if they were asked to describe the referral friends whom they look up to with respect to knowledge. Therefore, based on the condition described (the referral friend in clothing), we may conclude that when individuals engage in the social comparison with the referral friend, it is more likely perceived as an upward comparison.
III.2. Study 2
In Study 1, we have studied the correlation between social comparison tendencies, reference group influence, and referral friends’ influence. However, it still remains unclear whether the social comparison orientation may increase the level of influence people have from others, and causing individual to evaluate the brand more positively, or not. That is, when people engage in social comparison, I assumed that people will be more susceptible to the influence from others, therefore, when they engage in an upward social comparison (seeing a friend who is better off, with respect to clothes) they will be more likely to be influenced.
Another question is, to what extent does the referral friend cause the difference in individuals’ brand evaluation, compared to the non-referral friend? Therefore, in Study 2, I am interested in studying the causality between social comparison tendency and a referral friend’s influence in the brand evaluation of clothing. But first, due to the very wide definition of brand evaluation, I will define the term brand evaluation used in this study.
brand evaluation, and the brand purchase intention indicates a positive brand evaluation.
Attitudes are often defined as global evaluative judgments, ranging from negative, to neutral, to positive. Simply put, attitudes are our evaluations of objects. Therefore, brand attitude are consumers’ overall evaluations of a particular brand. People evaluate attitude objects in terms of their likeability, or desirability. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) state that through their theory of reasoned action, or also often called the attitude-behavior model, attitudes together with subjective norms are the antecedents of behavioral intentions, which in turn are supposed to precede behavior. They described attitudes as the desirability of the behavior, and subjective norms are representing the experienced social pressure. According to Fishbein and Ajzen, the positive attitudes toward a brand, in conjunction with positive subjective norms, will lead to positive behavior. Furthermore, Keller (2007) also defined brand attitudes as brand judgments, which are customers’ personal opinions about and evaluations of the brand.
Intentions are subjective judgments by people about how they will behave in the future; therefore, brand purchase intentions indicate the intention of purchasing a particular brand in the future. Moreover, as previous studies have revealed, even though favorable brand attitudes are important, but it is not enough if customers don’t actually consider the brand for possible purchase. Therefore, brand purchase intention should be included as an important factor in consumers’ brand evaluation.
To conclude, for the purpose of this study, to measure brand evaluation, there will be two factors that will be considered as most important: the attitude toward the brand, and the purchase intention of the brand.
communication among consumers concerning their personal experiences with a firm or product (Richins, 1984). More than 40 years ago, Arndt (1967b) has defined WoM as “oral, person-to-person communication between a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial, regarding a brand, a product, or a service”. Furthermore, Tuk in her dissertation (2008) has summarized three main characteristics of word of mouth; first, WoM concerns communication about products or services, or related issues such as their seller. Second, WoM concerns interpersonal communication, which nowadays can also include forums on the internet, but does not include for example mass media or newspaper. Third, there are no marketing parties assumed to be involved in these communications.
Previous studies have explored the effect of word of mouth, whether it is a direct recommendation, through internet media, or just a regular conversation, that would influence consumers in brand evaluation (Laczniak et al., 2001, Grace & O’cass, 2005). Moreover, existing literatures have concluded that word of mouth is very effective in influencing product judgments and purchase intention (Herr, Kardes & Kim, 1991; Hogan et al., 2004).
Since there were already a great number of studies about word of mouth and its effect on consumers’ decision making, in my study, I will focus more on a subtle recommendation, not through the words as in the word of mouth, or through the internet forum, but only by observing people who wear a particular brand. As we have discussed previously, people engage in comparison everyday, even without realizing it. People are influenced by reference groups, and more specifically by referral friends. Just by seeing and observing others, people may engage in social comparison. In this case, the comparison is more likely to be an upward comparison, because referral friend means that this friend is better off than the individual with respect to clothing.
that have noted a basic inconsistency in people’s admittance that reflect a resistance to admit the comparisons in which they have engaged, or it also might caused by their lack of awareness (Helgeson & Taylor, 1993; Hemphill & Lehman, 1991). Moreover, Stapel and Suls (2004) have explicitly tested the experimental paradigm, specifically in social comparison research, that comparison effects can be driven by the method adopted by the investigator. Therefore, with the purpose to minimize the bias in the answers made up by participants (due to their resistance to admit the comparisons, or their lack of awareness), in Study 2, I manipulated self-activation as a tool to prompt social comparison, instead of measured it.
To manipulate social comparison, previous studies have done some experiments which reliably prompted social comparison. As I have mentioned earlier, a series of studies by Stapel and Tesser (2001) have demonstrated that self-activation was sufficient to promote interest in social comparison. According to Stapel and Tesser, self-activation refers merely to the cognitive activation of (any kind of) self-related knowledge. This is a situation where an individual’s mind is occupied with thinking about him/herself, by activating self-related information. One of the ways to manipulate this self-activation was by conducting an experiment in which participants were instructed to tell about themselves (e.g. the important / unimportant things in their life, or to listed four things describing themselves). The main findings of this series of studies were that self-activation is very important for the promotion of social comparison tendencies; not only was there a correlation between interest in social comparison information and self-activation, but also activating the self played a causal role in increasing the tendency to compare oneself with others. Therefore, these studies have revealed the role of self-activation as a significant antecedent of social comparison. So, when attention is directed to the self, or in other words when the self is activated, people are more likely to compare to others than when their attention is directed elsewhere.
Hypotheses for Study 2
H2: When the self is activated, people will be more influenced by others, with respect to clothing brand evaluation, than when the self is not activated, regardless of whether the influencers are referral or non referral friends.
H3: A referral friend will have a stronger influence on consumers’ brand evaluation than influence from another (non referral) friend, regardless of whether the self is activated or not.
Also, interaction effects between self activation and a referral friend are expected.
H4a: When the self is activated, the influence of a referral friend will have a stronger effect on brand evaluation, compared to when the self is not activated.
H4b: When the self is activated, the influence from a referral friend will have a stronger effect on brand evaluation than the influence from another friend.
Method
Participants & Design
Figure 1: Factorial 2 x 2 design
Self Activation
Activated Not Activated
Referral Friend influence Non Referral Friend influence
Material & Procedure
In this experiment, I used the method used by Stapel and Tesser in their study 2b (2001). To manipulate self-activation, participants were instructed to imagine that they wanted “someone to know what you are really like” and that they could tell this someone four things about themselves.
On the other hand, to make the participants think about something other than the self (self is not activated), participants were instructed to imagine about movies. In this movie condition, participants were instructed to imagine they wanted a person, who had not watched television or seen a movie in 10 years, to know Hollywood movies and were asked which four movies this person should see. In both conditions, instruction stressed that participants should try to be specific in what they listed.
After the self was activated (or in the other condition, not activated), in the second part of the questionnaire, a scenario was presented. In that scenario, the participants read about the referral friend (or just a regular friend) who wears a new pair of jeans, and were asked to evaluate the brand of the jeans. The following is the scenario with the referral friend:
You have a friend in your group whom you admire in respect of clothes, she (he) is stylish, and you admire the way she (he) dresses. One day you saw her (him) wearing a new pair of jeans that really looked fit and good on her (him). You know the brand, but you never bought it before, and you don’t have any judgment about that brand before.
In the regular friend scenario, the situation was exactly the same only the first sentence changed into: You have a friend in your classroom; she (he) is just an ordinary friend for you, nothing special.
the brand as my choice if I want to buy new pair of jeans”). All two items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Results & Discussion
The mean of the 2 items measuring brand evaluation was computed as the overall brand evaluation measure. Then a two-way ANOVA of Self Activation (self is activated vs not activated) X Influencer (referral friends vs regular friends) was performed.
The ANOVA performed on this measure revealed a significant main effect of Self Activation, F(1, 96) = 20.98, p<.001, indicating that participants for whom the self is activated evaluate the brand more positively (M = 4.67, SD = 1.21) than did participants exposed to the movie condition (self is not activated) (M = 3.86, SD = .96). Therefore, H2 is accepted.
Another significant main effect of Type of Influencer was also revealed, F(1, 96) = 35.26, p<.001, indicating that when participants’ source of information were the referral friends, they evaluated brand more positively (M = 4.79, SD = 1.35) than did participants who received the information from a regular friend (M = 3.74, SD = .77). Therefore, H3 is also accepted.
The overall test for the interaction effect between self activation and referral friend revealed no significant effect; therefore we can not conclude that there was a difference in brand evaluation for the self-activated participants whether they receive the information from referral friends or regular friends. Also, when participants evaluate the brand (clothing brand) being wore by the referral friends, there was no difference in the brand evaluation whether their self is activated or not. Therefore, H4a and H4b are not accepted.
Figure 2: Main effects of Self Activation and Referral Friend Influence in Brand Evaluation (scale from 1 to 7)
Referral Friend
Referral Friend Non Referral Friend
5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 Activated Not Activated Self Activation Brand Evaluation
The present findings suggest that whenever the self is activated (therefore the tendency to engage in social comparison is also increased), people will be more susceptible to the influence of others, with respect to clothing brand evaluation, regardless of whether the influencers are the referral friend or not. When they see an upward comparison other (in this case, seeing their friends looking nice wearing a new pair of jeans), they tend to compare and get influenced by others, rather than when the tendency to compare is not so strong (when the self is not activated).
IV. General Discussion
Summary of Findings
The main purpose of this study was to gain more insight into how the type of influencers and the process of social comparison may affect individuals in evaluating a particular brand, more specifically, a clothing brand. Two studies were conducted and revealed that in consumers’ brand evaluation, with respect to clothes, the type of influencers and the social comparison tendency indeed affect individuals’ brand evaluations.
The Power of Referral Friend
Study 1 revealed that people admit that they have a referral friend (with respect to clothes), that is, a particular friend who has a relatively strong influence in individuals’ clothing brand evaluation. The referral friend is someone from the primary group; a friend with whom an individual interacts with in daily activities, usually in informal groups, who could have an influence on the individual in his/her decision making, in this case more specifically in clothing brand evaluation influence. Another finding was that the referral friend influence correlates significantly with all three types of reference group influence. In other words, we can say that the influences people experience from a referral friend might be informational, utilitarian, and/or value-expressive. The results of Study 2 confirmed the hypothesis that the referral friend exerts a stronger influence on individual’s brand evaluation than a regular friend. Observing the referral friend looking nice, wearing specific clothes (in this case, jeans) of a particular brand, resulted in the participant evaluating the brand more positively than observing a regular friend did.
The Social Comparison Effect
and value expressive influences only, not for the informational. Also, there was a positive correlation between the strong tendency to engage in social comparison and having more influences from the referral friend.
Furthermore, as Study 2 revealed, there was also a causal relation between social comparison orientation and brand evaluation. That is, the self activation condition, which is a strong determinant of social comparison, increases the individual’s brand evaluation. When people’s minds were occupied with the thought of themselves (self is activated), they would have more positive evaluation toward a (clothing) brand, rather then when their mind were not occupied with the thought of themselves (self is not activated).
Managerial Implications
Due to the fact that self activation increases a positive evaluation toward a brand, marketers could highlight the self as the central issue in promoting the brand. For example, in an advertisement, marketers could activate one’s self by using the words “I, me, or myself” to activate the self. This triggers individuals to think more about themselves. When the self is activated, it will increase the tendency of people to engage in social comparison; therefore, the brand evaluation will be higher when the individual sees an upward comparison (e.g. seeing the beautiful girl wearing a pair of jeans) than when the self is not activated. Under the condition when the self is activated, individuals will feel that the advertised brand was really directed to her. This may also be applicable, for example, in creating store atmosphere or creating the website that manipulates the self activation.
brand evaluation. It is well known that most people are nowadays active on the internet, and this goes especially for younger audiences. However, those activities are also closely related to word of mouth.
Limitations and Directions for Further Research
Some limitations of the current research are described below.
Participants
The participants of the two studies consisted of college students only. A previous study by Park and Lessig (1977) about the reference group influence has revealed that there were significant differences between college students and housewives in terms of the influence of reference groups on brand selection. Where significant differences exist between students and housewives, students are without exception consistently more susceptible to reference group influence. Based on Park and Lessig, this condition happened because substantial differences exist between students and housewives in terms of the frequency of informal social contacts, the intensity of peer pressure on one's choice behavior, the visibility of social approval in a group, and the rigidity of the group structure in which they interact. Therefore, the results of the current studies could be different if the participants consist of different demographic samples (e.g., younger teenagers or middle-aged workers). I expect that the influences of the reference group (particularly the value-expressive influence) would be stronger for younger teenagers (due to the intensity of peer pressure on their choice behavior), and, contradictory, the influence would be weaker for the middle aged workers, especially for the value-expressive influence.
The manipulation of referral friend situation
day wears something that does not look good on her? The possibility of different effects may occur then; it might moderate the influence effects, or, it might affect our judgment to the referral friend itself. So, future research might focus on this different situation, that is, when the referral friend does not confirm the individual expectation. My hypotheses of this situation are as follow. I expect that when the influence of the referral friend is very strong, then the individual will still evaluate the brand as positive, regardless of the “bad appearance” of the referral friend. On the other hand, if the influence of the referral friend is not so strong, the bad appearance may affect the judgment of the referral friend itself. Therefore, when the influence of the referral friend is not so strong, the “bad appearance” of the referral friend will affect the individual’s judgment of the referral friend to a lower level of reference. The term “very strong” or “not so strong” influence depends on to what extent does the individual admire and look up to the referral friend.
Second, the set-up of study 2 ensured that we did not have any judgment about the brand before (neutral attitude). Then, what if the condition is different, for example, when there was a negative judgment about the brand previously, will the effect be different? Will the referral friend influence be so strong that it might override our negative attitude toward the brand? Future research may also focus on this situation, which also refers to the change of attitude. Previous researches have observed that a positive attitude toward an advertisement might contribute to change the negative attitude towards a brand into a positive one (McInnis & Jaworski, 1989; Mitchell, 1986). Also positive word-of-mouth could have the power to change the negative into positive attitude towards a brand (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991; Hogan et al., 2004).
However, the results of this current study have brought at least some new insights in the study of consumer behavior. At least there are two theoretical contributions of this current study. First, some previous studies have suggested that social comparison orientation -or people’s tendency to engage in social comparison- usually correlated to the self evaluation (e.g. Festinger, 1954; Gibbons & Buunk, 1999; Wood, 1989). However, in this current study, it is shown that not only the self evaluation has some correlations to the social comparison orientation, but also does brand evaluation. More specifically, this study has shown that when the self is activated (therefore the social comparison tendency is also increased), people will evaluate a clothing brand more positively than when the self is not activated.
Another theoretical contribution, this study has shown that through a relatively subtle recommendation -only through observation- a referral friend can influence individual in evaluating a particular brand. More specifically, people evaluate a clothing brand more positively if the subtle recommendation is given by the referral friend that when it is given by a regular friend.
The referral friend might be an effective source to influence individual’s decision making. Moreover, the influence might occur only by observing the referral friend, not necessarily with the words or direct recommendation.
References
Arndt, J. (1967b). Word of mouth advertising: A review of the literature. New York: Advertising Research Foundation Inc.
Bearden, W.O., & Etzel, M.J. (1982). Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 183-194.
Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. & Engel, J.F. (2007). Consumer Behavior. International student edition, 10th edition. Thomson, South-Western. Bourne, F.S. (1957). Group Influence in Marketing and Public Relations.
Some Applications of Behavioral Research, eds. R. Likert and S.P. Hayes, Basil, Switzerland: UNESCO
Buunk, B.P., Collins, R.L., & Taylor, S.E. (1990). The Affective Consequences of Social Comparison: Either Direction has its Ups and Downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1238-1249.
Feltham, T.S. (1998). Leaving home: brand purchase influences on young adults. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15 (4), 320-335.
Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief; attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gibbons, F.X., & Buunk, B.P. (1999). Individual Differences in Social
Comparison: The Development of a Scale of Social Comparison Orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129-142.
Gilbert, D.T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K.A. (1995). When Comparisons Arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (2), 227-236.
Grace, D., O'Cass, A. (2005). Examining the effects of service brand communications on brand evaluation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14 (2), 106-116.
Gruder, C.L. (1971). Determinants of Social Comparison Choices. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7 (5), 473-489.
Hemphill, K.J., & Lehman, D.R. (1991). Social Comparisons and their Affective Consequences: The Importance of Comparison Dimension and Individual Difference Variables. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 10(4), 372-394.
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 454-462.
Hogan, J.E., Lemon, K.N., & Libai, B. (2004). Quantifying the ripple: Word-of-mouth and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (3), 271-280.
Keller, K.L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. 3rd Edition. Person Prentice-Hall.
Laczniak, R.N., DeCarlo, T.E., & Ramaswami, S.N. (2001). Consumers’ responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 57-73. Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand Familiarity and Confidence as
Determinants of Purchase Intention: And Empirical Test in a Multiple Brand Context. Journal of Business Research, 37(2), 115-120.
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Max-Neef, M. (1991). Development and Human Needs. In: P. Ekins and M.
Max-Neef (Eds.): Real-Life Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation. London, New York: Routledge.
McInnis, D.J., & Jaworski, B.J. (1989). Information processing from advertisement: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1-24.
Mitchel, A.A. (1986). The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on brand attitudes and attitudes towards the advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 12-24.
Mitchell, A.A., & Olson, J.C. (1981). Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude? Journal of Marketing Research,18 (3), 318-332.
Park, C.W., & Lessig, V.P. (1977). Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (2), 102-110.
Richins, M.L. (1984). Word of mouth communication as negative information. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 697-702.
Richins, M.L. (1991). Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 71-83.
Stapel, D.A., & Suls, J. (2004). Method Matters: Effects of Explicit Versus Implicit Social Comparisons on Activation, Behavior, and Self-Views. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (6), 860-875.
Stapel, D.A., & Tesser, A. (2001). Self-Activation Increases Social Comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (4), 742-750.
Sundaram, D. S., & Webster, C. (1999). The Role of Brand Familiarity on the Impact of Word-of-Mouth Communication on Brand Evaluation. Advances in Consumer Research, 26 (1), 664-670.
Tuk, M.A. (2008). Is Friendship Silent When Money Talks? How People Respond to Word-of-Mouth Marketing. ERIM Ph.D. Series Research in Management 130.
Wheeler, L. (1966). Toward A Theory of Behavioral Contagion. Psychological Review, 73 (2), 179-192.
Wills, T.A. (1981). Downward Comparison Principles in Social Phsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 245-271.
Appendix 1: Questionnaire Study 1 (English Version)
Gender: Male / Female Age:
Nationality: Dutch / Non Dutch
Part One
Most people compare themselves from time to time with others. For example, they may compare the way they feel, their opinions, their abilities, and/or their situation with those of other people. There is nothing particularly 'good' or 'bad' about this type of comparison, and some people do it more than others. We would like to find out how often you compare yourself with other people.
To do that we would like to ask you to indicate how much you agree with each statement below, by using the following scale:
1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree
1. I often compare how my loved ones (boy- or girlfriend, family members, etc.) are doing with how others are doing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how others do things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. If I want to find out how well I have done something, I compare what I have done with how others have done
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I often compare how I am doing socially (e.g., social skills, popularity) with other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I am not the type of person who compares often with others
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I often like to talk with others about mutual opinions and experiences
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I often try to find out what others think who face similar problems as I face 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. If I want to learn more about something, I try to find out what others think about it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. I never consider my situation in life relative to that of other people
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part Two
Now, we would like you to think about a specific brand of clothes that you really like, or you really want to have. Please take a minute to select a specific brand of clothes that you really like or really would like to own. In this part of the study, we will ask you some questions about your preference brand of clothing. To do that we would like to ask you to indicate how much you agree with each statement below, by using the following scale:
Please provide us with your immediate response, do not think about your answer for too long.
1. I seek information about various brands of clothing from an association of professionals or independent group of experts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I seek information from those who work with clothing as a profession (e.g. fashion designer, fashion stylist)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I seek brand related knowledge and experience (such as how Brand A's performance compares to Brand B's) from those friends, neighbors, relatives, or work associates who have reliable information about the brands.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. My observation of what experts in clothing (e.g. fashion designer, celebrity, stylish friend) do influences my choice of a brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. To satisfy the expectations of my friends, my decision to purchase a particular brand of clothes is influenced by their preferences.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. My decision to purchase a particular brand of clothes is influenced by the preferences of people with whom I have social interaction.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. My decision to purchase a particular brand of clothes is influenced by the preferences of family members.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. The desire to satisfy the expectations which others have of me has an impact on my brand choice of clothes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I feel that the purchase or use of a particular brand of clothes will enhance the image which others have of me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I feel that those who purchase or use a particular brand of clothes possess the characteristics which I would like to have.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I sometimes feel that it would be nice to be like the type of person which advertisements show using a particular brand of clothes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I feel that the people who purchase a particular brand of clothes are admired or respected by others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. I feel that the purchase of a particular brand of clothes helps me show others what I am, or would like to be.
Part Three
In this last part, we would like to know a bit more about you and your social group.
Therefore, we would like to ask you to indicate how much you agree with each statement below, by using the following scale:
1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree
Please provide us with your immediate response, do not think about your answer for too long.
1. I have many friends
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Clothing is a very important thing for me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I have (a) friend(s) whom I consider is/are better than me in the way they dress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I often get interested in brand(s) of clothes that my friend(s) wear(s)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I would like to buy clothes of the brand(s) that my friend(s) wear
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. My clothing (brand) choices are influenced by the clothes that my friend(s) wear(s). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. If my friend(s) wear(s) clothes of a brand that I am unfamiliar with, I get interested in the brand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Please describe your friend(s) whom you look up to, with respect to clothes
a. He/she is prettier than me Yes No b. He/she is generally smarter than me Yes No c. He/she is academically smarter than me Yes No d. He/she is wealthier than me Yes No e. He/she is more popular than me Yes No f. He/she has more friends than I do Yes No g. He/she is more active than me in participating in organization Yes No h. He/she is more socially active than me Yes No
Appendix 2: Questionnaire Study 1 (Dutch Version)
Geslacht: Man / Vrouw Leeftijd:
Deel Een
De meeste mensen vergelijken zich regelmatig met andere mensen. Ze vergelijken bijvoorbeeld hun gevoelens, opvattingen, vaardigheden, of situatie met die van andere mensen. Er is niets ‘goeds’ of ‘slechts’ aan dit soort vergelijkingen, maar sommige mensen doen het vaker dan andere. Om meer inzicht in dit proces te krijgen, vragen we je onderstaande vragen te beantwoorden.
Je kunt aangeven in welke mate je het eens bent met een stelling door een getal tussen de 1 en de 7 te omcirkelen. Als je het helemaal niet met de stelling eens bent, omcirkel je de 1. Hoe meer je het eens bent met de stelling, hoe hoger het getal dat je omcirkelt. Ben je het helemaal met de stelling eens, dan omcirkel je de 7.
1 = helemaal niet mee eens 7 = helemaal mee eens
1. Ik vergelijk mijzelf vaak met anderen wat betreft hetgeen ik in het leven heb bereikt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Als ik wil weten hoe iets zit, probeer ik er achter te komen wat anderen ervan vinden. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Ik let er altijd erg op hoe ik dingen doe in vergelijking met anderen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Ik vergelijk de situatie van mensen om wie ik geef (bijv. partner, familieleden) vaak met die van anderen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Ik wil altijd graag weten wat anderen in een vergelijkbare situatie zouden doen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Ik ben niet het type persoon dat zich vaak met anderen vergelijkt.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Als ik wil weten hoe goed ik iets heb gedaan, ga ik na hoe anderen het ervan af hebben gebracht.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Ik probeer er vaak achter te komen wat anderen vinden die met soortgelijke problemen worden geconfronteerd als ik.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Ik houd ervan met anderen te praten over wederzijdse meningen en ervaringen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Ik vergelijk mijn levenssituatie nooit met die van andere mensen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Ik vergelijk mijn kwaliteiten in het omgaan met mensen vaak met anderen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deel Twee
onderzoek willen wij je enkele vragen stellen over jouw voorkeur voor het gekozen kledingmerk. Om dit te doen vragen wij je om voor elke stelling aan te geven in hoeverre jij het ermee eens bent. Hiervoor wordt de volgende schaal gebruikt:
1 = helemaal niet mee eens 7 = helemaal mee eens
Probeer niet te lang na te denken over je antwoord, we zijn geinteresseerd in je mening zoals die tijdens het invullen bij je naar boven komt.
1. Ik verzamel informatie over verschillende kledingmerken van professionele organisaties of onhafhankelijke experts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Ik verzamel informatie over verschillende kledingmerken van degenen die als beroep werken met kleding (bijvoorbeeld mode ontwerpers, stylisten, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Ik verzamel kennis en ervaring over het merk (bijvoorbeeld hoe Merk A presteert vergeleken met Merk B) van die vrienden, buren, kennissen of collega’s die betrouwbare informatie over merken bezitten.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Mijn observatie van wat kleding experts (bijvoorbeeld mode ontwerpers, modieuze vriend(in), beroemdheid) doen beinvloedt mijn keuze voor een bepaald kledingmerk.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Om te voldoen aan de verwachtingen van mijn vrienden, wordt mijn keuze voor een bepaald kledingmerk door hun voorkeuren beinvloed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Mijn keuze om een bepaald kledingmerk te kopen wordt beinvloed door de voorkeuren van de mensen waarmee ik om ga.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Mijn keuze om een bepaald kledingmerk te kopen wordt beinvloed door de voorkeuren van mijn familieleden.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. De wens om aan de verwachtingen die anderen van mij hebben te voldoen, beinvloedt mijn keuze voor een bepaald kledingmerk.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Ik heb het gevoel dat de aanschaf of het dragen van een specifiek kledingmerk het imago dat anderen van mij hebben versterkt.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Ik heb het gevoel dat degenen die een specifiek kledingmerk kopen of dragen de kenmerken bezitten die ik graag zou willen hebben.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Ik krijg soms het gevoel dat het fijn zou zijn om te zijn zoals de personen in de advertenties van een specifiek kledingmerk.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ik heb het gevoel dat degenen die een bepaald kledingmerk kopen bewonderd en gerespecteerd worden door anderen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Ik heb het gevoel dat de aanschaf van een specifiek kledingmerk mij helpt om te laten zien aan anderen wie ik ben of wie ik zou willen zijn.
