Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671 677

Consumer innovativeness
Concepts and measurements
Gilles Roehrich*
Ecole Superieure des Affaires, BP 47X, 38040 cedex 9 Grenoble, France

Abstract
Consumer innovativeness, as a force that leads to innovative behavior, has often been cited and studied in research on the diffusion of
innovation. Surprisingly, it appears that there is still room for discussion about this concept. This article attempts to take stock of this issue. In
the first part, the different theoretical definitions of the notion are introduced critically. The second part is devoted to displaying major
measurement scales that have been designed with a view to measuring this construct. This review helps in understanding the diversity of
approaches to innovativeness. It raises two main questions: (1) Are the different theoretical conceptualizations of innovativeness equally valid
and compatible? (2) Do the scales really express each theoretical standpoint? This suggests that the present scales may be imperfect, and
construction of a new one may well be of interest.
D 2002 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Innovativeness; Measurement scales; Innovative behavior; New product; Innovation

1. Introduction
As a marketing concept, innovativeness can at the very
least be defined as imprecise. Firm innovativeness, or
creation of newness, depicts a firms ability to develop
and launch new products at a fast rate (Hurley and Hult,
1998). Product innovativeness, or possession of newness,
is the degree of newness of a product (Daneels and Kleinsmith, 2001). Consumer innovativeness, or consumption of
newness, is the tendency to buy new products more often
and more quickly than other people (Midgley and Dowling,
1978). In this article, the word innovativeness will be
used solely with reference to consumer innovativeness.
There is no real consensus on the meaning of innovativeness. It may be described as early purchase of a new product
(Cestre, 1996), as well as a tendency to be attracted by new
products (Steenkamp et al., 1999). Following the distinction
made by Midgley and Dowling (1978) between actualized
and innate innovativeness, most authors seem to consider
innovativeness a trait, the nature of which is still under
question. The first part of this article presents the various

* Tel.: +33-4-76-82-78-66; fax: +33-4-76-82-59-99.

E-mail address: giroeh@aol.com (G. Roehrich).
0148-2963/$ see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00311-9

conceptualizations of the consumer innate innovativeness

construct found in the literature.
Numerous scales have been created for the purpose of
measuring innate innovativeness. A comparative analysis of
the main scales found in the European and American
literature is presented in the second part of this article.

2. The consumer innate innovativeness concept

Innate innovativeness is a predisposition to buy new
and different products and brands rather than remain with
previous choices and consumer patterns (Steenkamp et al.,
1999). What forces can explain such a predisposition? Four
explanations have been proposed: (1) stimulation need, (2)
novelty seeking, (3) independence toward others communicated experience and (4) need for uniqueness.
2.1. Innate innovativeness as an expression of the need for
stimulation
Hebb (1955) and Leuba (1955) seem to be the first to
suggest that the individual seeks stimulation, and there is an
individual optimal level of stimulation. After a thorough
review of the different theories concerning this need, Venkatesan (1973) suggested that a relationship of direct

672

G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671677

dependency between the need for stimulation and innovative behavior should be considered. Building on Berlynes
(1960) approach, he shows how new products can help
people maintain their inner stimulation at an optimum level
in different situations. Many empirical results (Mittelstaedt
et al., 1976; Etzel and Wahlers, 1984; Valette-Florence and
Roehrich, 1993, for example) validate this theoretical
perspective.
Going further, Raju (1980) suggests that innovativeness
may intervene between need for stimulation and innovative
behavior as a mediator variable. Empirical results showing a
positive and significant relationship between need for
stimulation and innovativeness support this proposition
(Joachimstahler and Lastovicka, 1984; Wahlers et al.,
1986; Roehrich, 1993).
As a theoretical basis of many human activities, need for
stimulation may be perceived as an antecedent of new
product adoption, either directly or indirectly, through
innovativeness.
2.2. Innate innovativeness as an expression of novelty
seeking
As proposed by Pearson (1970), inherent novelty seeking
is an internal drive or a motivating strength, which
motivates the individual search for new information. Hirschman (1980) asserts that inherent novelty seeking is conceptually indistinguishable from the willingness to adopt
new products. She considers it a cardinal trait, linked to
different forms of behavioral innovativeness through actualized novelty seeking.
Actualized novelty seeking translates into a series of
activities aimed at finding new information, which leads to
three types of behavioral innovativeness: (1) informative
innovativeness is the actual acquisition of new information
about a new product, (2) adoptive innovativeness is the
adoption of a new product and (3) use innovativeness, which
has two expressions: (1) using a product in a different way
or (2) knowing all the different uses of a specific product.
This proposal broadens the scope of innovativeness from
interest in new products to interest in any kind of newness:
information, ideas or behavior.
Venkatraman and Price (1990) also build on Pearsons
(1970) work to make the distinction between cognitive and
sensory innovativeness: cognitive innovativeness is a tendency to engage with pleasure in new experiences that
stimulate thinking, which may be either internal or
external, whereas sensory innovativeness is a tendency to
engage with pleasure in internal experiences like fantasy,
dreaming or stimulating and risky activities like ski jumping. This latter innovativeness may be activated by stimuli,
which can be internal (dreaming) as well as external
(experiences).
By focusing on novelty, Pearson (1970) and Hirschman
(1980) push innovativeness beyond the realm of new
product consumption. For Mudd (1990), rather than solving

questions about its nature, this adds more ambiguity to the

concept.
2.3. Innovativeness as independence toward others communicated experience
Midgley (1977) makes a clear distinction between innate
innovativeness, a trait possessed by every human being, and
actualized innovativeness, which is actual innovative behavior. Arguing that an innovator will be the first to use a new
product, he defines innate innovativeness as the degree to
which an individual makes innovation decisions independently from the communicated experience of others. Midgley and Dowling (1978) adopt this approach, but they
question whether it might not be better to add receptivity
to new ideas to Midgleys definition. They finally choose
to consider that receptivity to new ideas and independence toward others communicated experience may probably be equivalent.
Certain empirical results tend to invalidate this theoretical position. Hirschman (1980) obtained a negative correlation between receptivity to new ideas and
independence of judgment in innovative decisions. This
result leads Hirschman to conclude that these two operationalizations of innovativeness address probably two
different domains of behavior. Carlson and Grossbart
(1984) and Bearden et al. (1986) obtain a positive but weak
correlation between independence of judgment and innate
tendency toward newness. Finally, the independence in
innovative decision dimension of Le Louarns (1997)
innovativeness scale is revealed to be independent of the
attraction to newness dimension of the scale and of
possession of new products.
Although attractive, the proposal to consider innovativeness as an expression of independence of judgment lacks
empirical support. We conclude that although useful in the
innovative decision process, autonomy in decision may
probably be neither an antecedent nor a facet of innovativeness.
2.4. Innovativeness as an expression of need for uniqueness
Simonson and Nowlis (2000) recall that there is tension
between two opposite objectives in decision making: conformity and distinction. According to Fromkin (1968), the
need for uniqueness pushes the individual to distinguish
himself through the possession of rare items, a socially
accepted behavior.
Snyder and Fromkin (1980) suggest three consequences
of the need for uniqueness: (1) the absence of interest in the
reaction of others to ones own different ideas or acts, (2) the
desire not to always follow the rules and (3) the willingness
to publicly defend ones opinions.
Fromkin (1971) is the first to suggest a link between
innovative behavior and need for uniqueness, whereas
Gatignon and Robertson (1985) conclude that consumers

G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671677

673

who depend highly on normative influences (desire for

conformity) adopt more slowly. Burns and Krampf
(1991) provide the first empirical validation of this theoretical proposition. They demonstrate positive correlation
between need for uniqueness and the number of new
products possessed. Moreover, this correlation was higher
for new products than for new brands.
Although supported by only a few empirical results,
Fromkins sound theoretical proposal suggests that the need
for uniqueness can be considered to be a credible antecedent
of innovativeness. Firstly, because innovativeness is an easy
way to satisfy the need for uniqueness and, secondly,
because need for uniqueness includes independence in
judgment, which is necessary for innovative purchasing.

solutions within an organization. Finally, Hurt and Alii

define innovativeness as change willingness. Moreover,
two of these scales have a creativity dimension, which
indicates that the innovativeness concept they measure is
not limited to newness consumption.
Little research has been undertaken on the Leavitt and
Waltons (see Bearden et al., 1993 for a presentation) and
Hurt Joseph Cooks (see Pallister and Foxall, 1995 for a
recent study) scales. Kirtons innovators adaptators inventory (KAI) raised a far greater interest in the research
community (see Mudd, 1995; Foxall, 1995 or Bagozzi
and Foxall, 1996 for an overview).
Some general conclusions can be drawn from these
studies:

2.5. Discussion

There is no consensus in the definition of innovativeness.

From inherent novelty seeking, which may have consequences other than new product buying behavior, to
predisposition to buy new products, which defines the
concept by its main consequence, through independence in
innovative decisions, which could not be empirically
validated, various authors have given different views of
the concept.
There is no consensus either on the roots of innovativeness. Of the need for stimulation, novelty seeking, independence in judgment and the need for uniqueness, which
are true antecedents of innovativeness? Analysis of existing
innovativeness scales may provide insights into these questions.

3. Operational measurements of innovativeness

Since the mid-1970s, a stream of research has led to the
design of innovativeness scales through a structured validation process. Most of these scales are different in terms of
their theoretical premise and internal structure. The resulting
set of scales therefore lacks homogeneity.
The most representative scales are presented below in
two groups: firstly, life innovativeness scales, i.e., the
ability to introduce newness in ones life, will be briefly
described. Then adoptive innovativeness scales will be
more thoroughly presented.

These scales tap innovativeness at a high level: items

describe attraction to any kind of newness, not only new
product attraction;
 These scales are multidimensional: seven dimensions for
Leavitt and Waltons 24-item scale, three for Kirtons 32item inventory, four (or five) for Hurt Joseph Cooks
20-item scale;
 These scales have good psychometric properties, except
for predictive validity: only weak correlations, if any,
have been found with new product purchase.
 These scales are very close to each other: Goldsmith and
Nugent (1984), then Goldsmith (1990) obtain very high
correlation coefficients between the Hurt Joseph
Cooks and Leavitt Waltons scales (between 0.64 and
0.82) and between the Hurt Joseph Cooks and Kirtons scales (0.55).
These scales do measure very similar concepts. The way
their authors present them, their poor predictive validity
with new product purchase and the reading of their items
(face validity) suggests that they tap inherent novelty seeking more than specific innovativeness.
3.2. Adoptive innovativeness scales
The scales presented under this heading have been
specifically designed to measure innovativeness as a tendency to buy new products.

3.1. Life innovativeness scales

Table 1
Item sample of the RAJUs innovativeness scale

Leavitt and Waltons (1975), Kirtons (1976) and Hurt et

al.s (1977) scales are included in this category. They are
named life innovativeness because their scopes go
beyond the sole adoption of new products. For example,
Leavitt and Walton view innovativeness as a trait that
underlies the intelligent, creative, selective use of communication for solving problems. Kirtons defines innovators
as those who tend to search for new problems and original

When I see a new or different brand on a shelf, I often pick it up just

to see what it is like
A new store or restaurant is not something I would be eager to
find out about
I am very cautious in trying new/different products
I would rather wait for others to try a new store or restaurant than
try it myself
Investigating new brands of grocery and other similar products is
generally a waste of time

674

G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671677

3.2.1. Rajus (1980) scale

Rajus (1980) innovativeness scale is part of a broader
scale designed to measure consumer tendencies toward
exploratory behavior. It consists of 10 items (see items
sample in Table 1), 7 of which are common with other
dimensions of his exploratory tendencies scale. Only one of
these items has any social content: I would rather wait for
others to try a new store or restaurant than try it myself.
The authors results show good internal consistency and
high correlation with a sensation seeking scale. These
results are partly confirmed by Joachimsthaler and Lastovicka (1984), Wahlers and Dunn (1987) and Wahlers et al.
(1986). This scale has been criticized for its structure. After
a review of the criticisms (Baumgartner and Steenkamp,
1996), the authors propose a modified scale.
3.2.2. Baumgartner and Steenkamps exploratory product
acquisition
These authors distinguish only two dimensions of exploratory buying behavior: exploratory acquisition of products
(EAP) and exploratory information seeking (EIS). For them,
consumers who are high on EAP enjoy taking chances in
buying unfamiliar products, are willing to try out new and
innovative products, value variety in making product
choices, and change their purchase behavior in an effort
to attain stimulating consumption experiences.
This EAP 10-item scale (items sample are presented in
Table 2) is highly correlated with such constructs as stimulation need (.45) and sensory sensation seeking (.43). Its
predictive validity is confirmed by correlations with variety
seeking behavior (.25) and innovative behavior (.16). Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1996) confirm a significant correlation
between EAP and the possession of 46 new products.
3.2.3. Goldsmith and Hofackers scale
The originality of the scale designed by these authors is
that it measures domain-specific innovativeness, which is a
tendency to learn about and adopt innovations (new
products) within a specific domain of interest. They
perceive this construct as intermediary between innate
innovativeness and innovative behavior, which is empirically, but moderately, validated by Goldsmith et al. (1995).
Four of the six items in this scale (Table 3) describe social
innovativeness, as the interviewee is compared with others.
This scale proved to be unidimensional and highly
reliable. Predictive validity is high, with correlations ranTable 2
Item sample of Baumgartner and Steenkamps EAP scale
I would rather stick to a brand I usually buy than try something I am not
very sure of
When I go to restaurant, I feel it is safer to order dishes I am familiar with
If I like a brand, I rarely switch from it just to try something different
I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands just to get some variety
in my purchase
When I see a new brand on the shelf, Im not afraid of giving it a try

Table 3
Domain specific innovativeness scale
Compared to my friends, I own few rock albums
In general, I am the last in my circle of friends to know the titles of
the latest rock albums
In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy a new
rock album when it appears
If I heard that a new rock album was available in the store, I would be
interested enough to buy it
I will buy a new rock album, even if I havent heard it yet
I know the names of new rock acts before other people do

ging from .38 to .63 with new-product purchase. However,

the correlation between that scale and an opinion leadership
scale (.78 and .80) questions its discriminant validity. Nyeck
et al. (1996) used this scale in an international study
(Canada, Israel, France). Their results tend to confirm those
of Goldsmith and Hofacker, although predictive validity is
lower and factorial structure of lesser quality, as for Goldsmith et al. (1995).
3.2.4. Roehrichs (1995) scale
For Roehrich, innovativeness is an expression of two
central needs: need for stimulation (Berlyne, 1960) and need
for uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980). Consequently,
his scale comprises two dimensions: hedonist innovativeness (tied to need for stimulation) and social innovativeness
(tied to need for uniqueness). Significant items are displayed
in Table 4.
Internal consistency, trait validity and nomological validity seem acceptable, except for correlations with mental
rigidity (up to .42) and dogmatism (from .19 to .37).
Correlation with need for stimulation is as expected (from
.16 to .18), but surprisingly no correlation with need for
uniqueness is presented.
Predictive validity tends to be higher (r=.31) with the
number of new products purchased than with innovative
purchase intention (between 0 and .30). This result is
consistent with Midgley and Dowlings proposal. Other
studies using this scale (Roehrich, 1987; DHauteville,
1994) confirm these results.
3.2.5. Le Louarns scale
Building on the works of Midgley and Dowling on one
hand and Hirschman on the other, Le Louarn (1997) defines
predisposition to innovate as a central predisposition to
take innovative decisions, which expresses itself at every
Table 4
Item sample of Roehrichs innovativeness scale (free translation)
Hedonist
innovativeness

Social
innovativeness

I am more interested in buying new than

known products
I like to buy new and different products
New products excite me
I am usually among the first to try new products
I know more than others on latest new products
I try new products before my friends and neighbors

G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671677

Table 5
Item sample of Le Louarns innovativeness scale (free translation)
Attraction to
newness

Autonomy in
innovative decision

Ability to take risks

in trying newness

I am the kind of person who tries every new

product at least once
When I hear about a new product, I try to know
more about at the first occasion
Before trying a new product, I try to learn what
friends who possess this product think about it
I seek out the opinion of those who have tried
new products or brands before I try them
Id rather choose a brand that I usually buy
rather than try something I am not confident in
I never buy something I dont know anything
about with the risk of making a mistake

level of human activity. At product consumption level, this

predisposition has three main expressions. Table 5 displays
items from the three facets of this scale.
This scale has proved to have good psychometric properties (internal consistency and validity). Its predictive
validity is good: R2 between the score and early new product
purchase intention is up to .23. Of the three dimensions,
which surprisingly appear to correlate poorly, only newness
attractiveness is correlated with innovative behavior.

4. Discussion
Except for a few results (relative to factorial structure or
some correlations), the scales reviewed in this second part
show good psychometric properties. However, they differ in
many dimensions. We will concentrate on four of them:
dimensionality, implicit content, level of measurement and
predictive validity.
As a whole, these scales tap different dimensions, the
most specific for innovation diffusion are: newness attraction/repulsion (Leavitt and Walton; Hurt, Joseph and Cook;
Raju, Baumgartner and Steenkamp; Goldsmith and
Hofacker; Roehrich; Le Louarn scales), creativity/originality (Kirton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook scales), risk attraction/
aversion (Leavitt and Walton; Le Louarn scales), attention
to others opinion (Leavitt and Walton; Le Louarn scales).
The implicit content of the scales refers to the individual-social dimension of innovativeness. Some items are

675

centered on individual innovativeness (I like to buy new

products), whereas others imply a comparison (I like to buy
new products before others). We call this dimension implicit
because, except for Roehrich and for Steenkamp and
Baumgartner (whose scale does not include any social
item), it is not explicitly mentioned in the theoretical
description of the innovativeness concept.
A study of the wording of the items reveals that innovativeness dimensions are measured at different levels: at
general level, any kind of newness (products, ideas, behaviors, etc.) is concerned. At product level, the items are about
innovations or new products (except for EAP scale, which
mainly concentrates on different products, either new or
unknown) . At domain-specific level, the items are about
new products in a specific product category. It is not
obvious whether a yes at one level would be equivalent
to a yes at the other one.
Finally, as already mentioned by Foxall (1995), the
scales predictive validity may be disappointing. Most
scales demonstrate very low correlation, if any, with innovative behavior. Goldsmith and Hofackers domain-specific
scale appears to be an exception with a correlation of up to
.64. However, this latter correlation seems to be exceptional,
as most of the coefficients obtained with this scale are
significantly lower, but still greater than .30. This correlation therefore appears to be a reasonable level for innovativeness, as it is obtained by scales from Le Louarn,
Roehrich, Steenkamp and Baumgartner or Raju. Finally,
we try to link predictive validity with dimensionality and
level of measurement of the scales (Table 6).
This table clearly demonstrates that when measured at a
general level, innovativeness has no predictive validity.
When measured at product consumption level, attraction
toward newness and social innovativeness dimensions have
average predictive validity. The best predictive validity is
reached by domain-specific measurement of social innovativeness, which dominates individual innovativeness in the
Goldsmith and Hofackers scale. Dimensions such as independence of judgment, attitude toward risk/ change or
creativity have no predictive validity.
Midgley and Dowling (1978) distinguish three levels of
innovative behavior: (1) the purchase of a single new

Table 6
Predictive validity of the innovativeness scales, depending on their subdimensions and level of measurement

Newness attraction
(individual)
Social context

Independence of judgement
Attitude toward risk/change
Creativity

General behavior

Product consumption

Domain-specific consumption

No predictive validity
(Leavitt and Walton, Hurt,
Joseph and Cook)
No predictive validity
(Leavitt and Walton, Hurt,
Joseph and Cook)

Low to average predictive validity

(Raju, Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
Roehrich, Le Louarn)
Low to average predictive validity
(Roehrich)

Average to high predictive validity

(Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991)

No predictive validity
(Leavitt and Walton)
No predictive validity
(Kirton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook)

No predictive validity (Le Louarn)

No predictive validity (Le Louarn)

676

G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671677

Table 7
Different levels of predictive validity

Mono products

Mono category

Roehrich (1995)

Le Louarn (1997)

From 0.09 to 0.30

(about 0.15 on
the average)
0.26 (perfumes)

From 0.07 to 0.48

(about 0.15 on
the average)
0.32 (electronic
appliances)

Multicategories 0.31

Baumgartner
and Steenkamp
(1996)
0.16

product, (2) the purchase of new products in a single product

category and (3) the purchase of new products in any product
category. They hypothesize that the role of innovativeness, at the
new product attraction level, becomes easier to isolate as the level
of innovative behavior rises. Results displayed in Table 7 provide
some support for this hypothesis.

5. Summary and future research

Of the dimensions which constitute the internal structure
of innovativeness scales, two appear to be of great interest:
attraction toward newness (individual innovativeness) and
speed of adoption (social innovativeness). The former can
be found in all the scales presented here, whereas the latter
is explicitly included in only one scale, although implicitly
present in most.
Although common to every scale, individual innovativeness is theoretically linked to different roots: novelty seeking (Le Louarn) or need for stimulation (Raju, Roehrich,
Steenkamp and Baumgartner). However, reading the items
shows that they are quite similar despite the theoretical
differences. Moreover, each scale contains social items,
although only one author explicitly identifies this theoretical
dimension of innovativeness. These remarks raise the general question of the link between the theoretical foundations
of a scale and the wording of the items.
Whether individual or social, innovativeness seems to be
able to tap on average only about 10% of innovative
behavior. Two possible explanations will be pointed out
here.
Innovativeness is secondary in explaining innovative
behavior: most of the explanatory power may come from the
way the new product is perceived (Ostlund, 1974; Roehrich,
2001) or from other intervening variables (Midgley and
Dowling, 1978).
What does new product mean for the interviewee?
New products belong to a continuum from highly continuous to highly discontinuous. Do we really know
the level at which respondents give their answer? People
who want to change their world may not be interested in
buying a new detergent; and people who feel adventurous
when buying a new perfume may have a low score on
innovativeness.

Consequently, further research into the study of innovativeness and its consequences may be helpful. Firstly, an
integrative model of innovativeness is needed. This model
should simultaneously offer a structured representation of
the different levels at which the innovativeness construct has
been conceptualized and the theoretical roots of this construct. It should include the different dimensions of innovativeness. Secondly, this model should provide the theoretical
foundation for the construction of innovativeness scales,
each tapping the phenomena at a specific level and including items specific to the hypothetical dimensions of innovativeness.
References
Bagozzi RP, Foxall GR. Construct validation of a measure of adaptive
innovative cognitive styles in consumption. Int J Res Mark 1996;13:
201 13.
Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J-BEM. Exploratory consumer buying behavior: conceptualization and measurement. Int J Res Mark 1996;13:
121 37.
Bearden WO, Calcich SE, Netemeyer R, Tell FE. An exploratory investigation of consumer innovativeness and interpersonal influences. In:
Richard JL, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 13. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer, 1986. p. 77 82.
Bearden WO, Netemeyer R, Mobley MF. Handbook of marketing scales.
Newburg Park, California: Sage Publication, 1993.
Berlyne DE. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1960.
Burns DJ, Krampf RF. A semiotic perspective on innovative behavior.
Developments in marketing science. 15th Annual Conference, Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 14. 1991;32 5.
Carlson L, Grossbart SL. Toward a better understanding of inherent innovativeness. In: Russel WB, Robert AP, editors. Proceeding of the
A.M.A. educators conference. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1984. p. 88 91.
Cestre G. Diffusion et innovativite: definition, modelisation et mesure.
Rech Appl Mark 1996;11(1):69 88.
Daneels E, Kleinsmith EJ. Product innovativeness from the firms perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. J Prod Innov Manage 2001;18(6):357 73 (November).
Etzel MJ, Wahlers RG. Optimal stimulation level and consumer travel
preferences. In: Russel WB, Robert AP, editors. Proceeding of the
A.M.A. educators conference. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1984. p. 92 5.
Foxall GR. Cognitive styles of consumer initiators. Technovation 1995;
15(5):269 89.
Fromkin HL. Affective and valuational consequences of self-perceived
uniqueness deprivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio
State University, 1968.
Fromkin HL. A social psychological analysis of the adoption and diffusion
of new products and practices from a uniqueness motivation perspective. In: David MG, editor. 2nd annual conference. Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, 1971. p. 464 9.
Gatignon H, Robertson TS. A propositional inventory for new diffusion
research. J Consum Res 1985;11:849 67 (March).
Goldsmith RE. The validity of scale to measure global innovativeness.
J Appl Bus Res 1990;7(2):89 97.
Goldsmith RE, Hofacker CF. Measuring consumer innovativeness. J Acad
Mark Sci 1991;19(3):209 22 (summer).
Goldsmith RE, Nugent N. Innovativeness and cognitive complexity: a second look. Psychol Rep 1984;55:431 8.
Goldsmith RE, Freiden JB, Eastman JK. The generality/specificity issue in
consumer innovativeness research. Technovation 1995;15(10):601 13.

G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671677

DHauteville F. Un mode`le dacceptation du nouveau produit par le consommateur: cas du vin allege en alcool. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montpellier II, 1994.
Hebb DD. Drives and the C.N.S. (central nervous system). Psychol Rev
1995;62:243 54.
Hirschman EC. Innovativeness, novelty seeking and consumer creativity.
J Consum Res 1980;7:283 95 (December).
Hurley RF, Hult GTM. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational
learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Mark 1998;62(3):
42 54.
Hurt HT, Joseph K, Cook C. Scales for the measurement of innovativeness.
Hum Commun Res 1977;4(1):58 65.
Joachimsthaler EA, Lastovicka JL. Optimal stimulation level: exploratory
behavior models. J Consum Res 1984;11:830 5 (December).
Kirton M. Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. J Appl
Psychol 1976;61(5):622 9.
Le Louarn P. La tendance a` innover des consommateurs: analyse conceptuelle et proposition dune echelle de mesure. Rech Appl Mark 1997;
12(1):3 20.
Leavitt C, Walton J. Development of a scale for innovativeness. In: Schlinger MJ, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 2. Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, 1975. p. 545 54.
Leuba C. Toward some integration of learning theories: the concept of
optimal stimulation. Psychol Rep 1995;1:27 33.
Midgley D. Innovation and new product marketing. Londres: Croom Helm,
1977.
Midgley D, Dowling GR. Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement.
J Consum Res 1978;4:229 42.
Mittelstaedt RA, Grossbart SL, Curtis WW, Devere SP. Optimal stimulation
level and the adoption decision process. J Consum Res 1976;3:84 94
(September).
Mudd S. The place of innovativeness in models of the adoption process: an
integrative review. Technovation 1990;10(2):119 36.
Mudd S. Kirton adaptation innovation theory: organizational implications.
Technovation 1995;15(3):165 76.
Nyeck S, Sylvie P, Xuereb J-M, Chebat JC. Standardisation ou adaptation
des echelles de mesure a` travers differents contextes nationaux: lexemple dune echelle de mesure de linnovativite. Rech Appl Mark
1996;11(3):57 74.
Ostlund LE. Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness.
J Consum Res 1974;1:23 9 (September).
Pallister JG, Foxall GR. Psychometric properties of the Hurt Joseph

677

Cook scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Technovation

1995;18(11):663 75.
Pearson PH. Relationships between global and specific measures of novelty
seeking. J Consult Clin Psychol 1970;34:199 204.
Raju PS. Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics and exploratory behavior. J Consum Res 1980;7:272 82 (December).
Roehrich G. Nouveaute percue dune innovation. Rech Appl Mark 1987;
2(1):1 15.
Roehrich G. Les consommateurs innovateurs: un essai didentification.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ecole Superieure des Affaires de
Grenoble, 1993.
Roehrich G. Innovativites hedoniste et sociale: proposition dune echelle de
mesure. Rech Appl Mark 1995;9(2):19 41.
Roehrich G. Causes de lachat dun nouveau produit: variables individuelles ou caracteristiques percues? Rev Fr Mark 2001;182(2001/2):
83 98.
Simonson I, Nowlis SM. The role of explanation and need for uniqueness in
consumer decision making: unconventional choice based on reason.
J Consum Res 2000;27(1):49 68 (June).
Snyder CR, Fromkin HC. Uniqueness: the human pursuit of difference.
New York: Plenum, 1980.
Steenkamp JBEM, Hofstede F ter, Wedel M. A cross-national comparison
into the national and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. J Mark 1999;63(2):55 69.
Steenkamp JBEM, Van Trijp HCM. To buy or not to buy? Modeling purchase of new products using marketing mix variables and consumer
characteristics. Gainesville, FL: Marketing Science Conference, 1996.
Valette-Florence P, Roehrich G. Une approche causale du comportement
innovateur. Econ Soc Ser Sci Gestion 1993;19:75 106 (October, SG).
Venkatesan M. Cognitive consistency and novelty seeking. In: Ward S,
Robertson TS, editors. Consumer behavior theoretical sources. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973. p. 355 84.
Venkatraman MP, Price LL. Differentiating between cognitive and sensory
innovativeness. J Bus Rev 1990;20:293 315.
Wahlers RG, Dunn MG. Optimal stimulation level measurement and exploratory behavior: review and analysis. AMA Winter Educators Conference, San Antonio, TX.1987;249 54.
Wahlers RG, Dunn MG, Etzel MJ. The convergence of alternative OSL
measures with consumer exploratory behavior tendencies. In: Richard
JL, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 13. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1986. p. 398 402.