Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions WILLIAM O. BEARDEN MICHAEL J. ETZEL* Consumer perceptions of reference group influence on product and brand deci- sions were examined using 645 members of a consumer panel and 151 respon- dents in a followup study. Differences for 16 products In informational, value ex- pressive, and utilitarian influence were investigated in a nested repeated measures design. The results support hypothesized differences in reference group influence between publicly and privately consumed products and luxuries and necessities. F or some time, social scientists have recognized group membership as a determinant of behavior. The fact that people act in accordance with a frame of reference produced by the groups to which they belong is a long-accepted and sound premise (Merton and Rossi 1949). However, even casual observation revealed perplexing contradictions be- tween group membership and behavior. Many individuals simply did not behave like the majority of people in their recognized groups (e.g.. social class or educational level). Though much of this uncharacteristic behavior was explain- able by constructs other than group membership, the ap- parent instability of group influence created confusion. A partial solution was found in the concept of "reference groups." which recognizes that people frequently orient themselves to other than membership groups in shaping their behavior and evaluations and that reference groups can perform a diversity of functions (Merton and Rossi 1949). Marketers have generally accepted the reference group construct as important in at least some types of con- sumer decision making. The present study investigated ref- erence group influence on product and brand purchase de- cisions by examining the interrelationships among two forms of product use conspicuousness (Boume 1957) and three types of reference group influence (Park and Lessig 1977). REFERENCE GROUP CONSTRUCT The operationalization of reference groups is actually rel- atively recent. Hyman (1942) coined the term in a study of •William O. Bearden is Associaie Professor of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, and Michael J. Etzel is Professor of Marketing and Chairman, College of Business, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. The helpful suggestions of three anonymous reviewers are gratefully ac- knowledged. 183 social status when he asked respondents with which indi- viduals or groups they compared themselves. This initial characterization was followed by additional research (New- comb 1943; Sherif 1948) and numerous refinements (Camp- bell et al. 1960; French and Raven 1959; Merton 1957; Sherif and Sherif 1964; Shibutani 1955; Smith. Bruner, and White 1956; Turner 1955) that clarified and expanded the meaning of the concept. For example. Kelley (1947) dis- tinguished between reference groups used as standards of comparison for self-appraisal (comparative) and those used as a source of personal norms, attitudes, and values (nor- mative). This developing body of literature provided a basis for a series of applications undertaken in a number of fields. For example. Hyman and Singer (1968. p. 7) note that the concept has been applied in studies of farmers, scientists, alcoholics, newspaper people, the mentally ill. consumers, voters, juvenile delinquents, and opinion leaders. To that list could be added steel distributors (Kreisberg 1955). phy- sicians (Coleman. Katz. and Menzel 1966). auto owners (Grubb and Stem 1971). cosmetic users (Moschis 1976). and students and housewives (Park and Lessig 1977). In addition to investigating the presence of reference group influence within identifiable groups, there have been a series of consumer research studies into specific aspects of reference group influence. Venkatesan (1966) attempted to test the differential effects of compliance (Kelman 1961) and reactance (Brehm 1966) in an experiment involving subjects selecting the "best" from among identical suits under different forms of group pressure. He was able to establish the influence of voiced group sentiment on a sub- ject (compliance); however, the method used in ojjeration- alizing reactance has been questioned (Clee and Wicklund 1980). Bumkrant and Cousineau (1975) demonstrated that people use others' product evaluations as a source of in- formation about products. In a study of consumer brand choice. Witt (1969) con- C JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH • Vol. 9 • September 1982
Transcript
Reference Group Influence on Productand Brand Purchase Decisions
WILLIAM O. BEARDENMICHAEL J. ETZEL*
Consumer perceptions of reference group influence on product and brand deci-sions were examined using 645 members of a consumer panel and 151 respon-dents in a followup study. Differences for 16 products In informational, value ex-pressive, and utilitarian influence were investigated in a nested repeatedmeasures design. The results support hypothesized differences in reference groupinfluence between publicly and privately consumed products and luxuries andnecessities.
For some time, social scientists have recognized groupmembership as a determinant of behavior. The fact that
people act in accordance with a frame of reference producedby the groups to which they belong is a long-accepted andsound premise (Merton and Rossi 1949). However, evencasual observation revealed perplexing contradictions be-tween group membership and behavior. Many individualssimply did not behave like the majority of people in theirrecognized groups (e.g.. social class or educational level).Though much of this uncharacteristic behavior was explain-able by constructs other than group membership, the ap-parent instability of group influence created confusion. Apartial solution was found in the concept of "referencegroups." which recognizes that people frequently orientthemselves to other than membership groups in shapingtheir behavior and evaluations and that reference groupscan perform a diversity of functions (Merton and Rossi1949). Marketers have generally accepted the referencegroup construct as important in at least some types of con-sumer decision making. The present study investigated ref-erence group influence on product and brand purchase de-cisions by examining the interrelationships among twoforms of product use conspicuousness (Boume 1957) andthree types of reference group influence (Park and Lessig1977).
REFERENCE GROUP CONSTRUCTThe operationalization of reference groups is actually rel-
atively recent. Hyman (1942) coined the term in a study of
•William O. Bearden is Associaie Professor of Marketing, College ofBusiness Administration, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC29208, and Michael J. Etzel is Professor of Marketing and Chairman,College of Business, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.The helpful suggestions of three anonymous reviewers are gratefully ac-knowledged.
183
social status when he asked respondents with which indi-viduals or groups they compared themselves. This initialcharacterization was followed by additional research (New-comb 1943; Sherif 1948) and numerous refinements (Camp-bell et al. 1960; French and Raven 1959; Merton 1957;Sherif and Sherif 1964; Shibutani 1955; Smith. Bruner, andWhite 1956; Turner 1955) that clarified and expanded themeaning of the concept. For example. Kelley (1947) dis-tinguished between reference groups used as standards ofcomparison for self-appraisal (comparative) and those usedas a source of personal norms, attitudes, and values (nor-mative).
This developing body of literature provided a basis fora series of applications undertaken in a number of fields.For example. Hyman and Singer (1968. p. 7) note that theconcept has been applied in studies of farmers, scientists,alcoholics, newspaper people, the mentally ill. consumers,voters, juvenile delinquents, and opinion leaders. To thatlist could be added steel distributors (Kreisberg 1955). phy-sicians (Coleman. Katz. and Menzel 1966). auto owners(Grubb and Stem 1971). cosmetic users (Moschis 1976).and students and housewives (Park and Lessig 1977).
In addition to investigating the presence of referencegroup influence within identifiable groups, there have beena series of consumer research studies into specific aspectsof reference group influence. Venkatesan (1966) attemptedto test the differential effects of compliance (Kelman 1961)and reactance (Brehm 1966) in an experiment involvingsubjects selecting the "best" from among identical suitsunder different forms of group pressure. He was able toestablish the influence of voiced group sentiment on a sub-ject (compliance); however, the method used in ojjeration-alizing reactance has been questioned (Clee and Wicklund1980). Bumkrant and Cousineau (1975) demonstrated thatpeople use others' product evaluations as a source of in-formation about products.
In a study of consumer brand choice. Witt (1969) con-
C JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH • Vol. 9 • September 1982
184 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
firmed earlier nonmarketing studies which indicated thatgroup cohesiveness influences behavior. The far-reachinginfluence of groups was suggested by Cocanongher andBruce (1971), who found that socially distant referencegroups can influence consumers if consumers hold favor-able attitudes toward the members or activities of thatgroup. Taking a somewhat different approach. Witt andBruce (1970) found the operation of group influence relatedto the extent of social involvement associated with the prod-uct being investigated. Stafford (1966) found individualbrand choice was affected by group influence.
The concept of group influence in consumer research hasbeen further refined through studies of various aspects ofthe social influence process. Witt and Bruce (1972) sug-gested the existence of at least seven different determinantsof influence including perceived risk, expertise of the re-ferent, and the individual's need for social approval. Mos-chis (1976) found that consumers use both reflective andcomparative appraisal (Jones and Gerard 1967) in productchoices. That is, they engage in direct, verbal interactionto detemiine the reference group's evaluation as well asobserving the behavior of reference group members in re-gard to the decision under consideration. Park and Lessig(1977) investigated reference group influence and foundstudents more susceptible than housewives to group influ-ence for a variety of products.
The construct is commonly used by marketing practi-tioners. Reference group concepts have been used by ad-vertisers in their efforts to persuade consumers to purchaseproducts and brands. Portraying products being consumedin socially pleasant situations, the use of prominent/attrac-tive people endorsing products, and the use of obviousgroup members as spokespersons in advertisements (Kotler1980) are all evidence that marketers and advertisers makesubstantial use of potential reference group influence onconsumer behavior in the development of their communi-cations. Alluding to reference groups in persuasive atemptsto market products and brands demonstrates the belief thatreference groups expose people to behavior and lifestyles,influence self-concept development, contribute to the for-mation of values and attitudes, and generate pressure forconformity to group norms.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESESA reference group is a person or group of people that
significantly influences an individual's behavior. Withinthis general framework, several types of influence havebeen identified. Based on the work of Deutsch and Gerard(19SS) and Kelman (1961). information, utilitarian, andvalue-expressive influences have been identified (Park andLessig 1977). Informational influence is based on the desireto make informed decisions. Faced with uncertainty, anindividual will seek information. From the many sourcesavailable, the most likely to be accepted are those viewedas credible. Referents with high credibility include thosewith presumed expertise or significant others.
Utilitarian reference group influence is reflected in at-
tempts to comply with the wishes of others to achieve re-wards or avoid punishments. If an individual feels that cer-tain types of behavior will result in rewards or punishmentsfrom others and these outcomes are viewed as important,he or she will find it useful to meet the expectations ofthese significant others.
A third type of influence, value-expressive, is character-ized by the need for psychological association with a personor group and is reflected in the acceptance of positionsexpressed by others. This association can take two forms.One form is an attempt to resemble or be like the referencegroup. The second type of value-expressive influence flowsfrom an attachment or. liking for the group. The individualis responsive to the reference group out of a feeling for it.not because of a desire to be associated with it.
The occurrence of all of these forms of influence requiresthe opportunity for social interaction or public scrutiny ofbehavior. Seeking information, complying with the pref-erence of others, and adopting values of others all involvesome form of communication or observation of decisions,opinions, or behavior. In a purchase context, this impliesproducts that will be seen by others. Besides the opportunityfor obser\'ation. it is important to consider what elementsof an item will be noticeable. Certainly one is the productitself, and another is the brand of the product. This ap-proach is presented in what is probably the most recognizedmarketing discussion of reference group influence (Boume1957). in which the distinction between product and branddecisions is stressed.
Boume (1957, p. 218) originally proposed that referencegroup influence on product and brand decisions is a functionof two forms of "conspicuousness." The first condition,affecting product decisions, is that the item must be "ex-clusive" in some way. No matter how visible a product is.if virtually everyone owns it, it is not conspicuous in thissense. This is operationalized here as the distinction be-tween luxuries and necessities. By definition, necessitiesare possessed by virtually everyone, while luxuries have adegree of exclusivity. Second, for reference group influenceto affect brand decisions, the item must be "seen or iden-tified by others." This can be operationalized in terms ofwhere an item is consumed. Publicly consumed productsare seen by others, while privately consumed products arenot. That is. those brand decisions involving productswhich can be noticed and identified are more susceptibleto reference group influence.
Combining the concepts of public-private consumptionand luxur>-necessity items produces the following fourconditions: (1) publicly consumed luxuries. (2) publiclyconsumed necessities, (3) privately consumed luxuries, and(4) privately consumed necessities. When applied to prod-uct and brand decisions, these conditions create a total ofeight relationships that are the basis underlying this study:
1. Publicly consumed luxury (PUL)—a product consumedin public view and not commonly owned or used (e.g..golf clubs). In this case, whether or not the product isowned and also what brand is purchased is likely to beinfluenced by others (Boume 1957. p. 219).
REFERENCE GROUP INFLUENCE 185
EXHIBrr A
COMBINING PUBLIC-PRIVATE AND LUXURY-NECESSITY DIMENSIONSWITH PRODUCT AND BRAND PURCHASE DECISIONS
Public
Necessity
"""-"^--...ProductBrand^~~~'~-~....,_^^
Strong referencegroup influence( + )
Weak referencegroup influence( - )
Weak referencegroup influence ( - )
Public necessitiesInfluence: Weak
product andstrong brand
Examples:Wristwatch.automobile,man's suit
Private necessitiesInfluence: Weak
product andbrand
Examples:Mattress.floor lamp.refrigerator
Strong referencegroup influence (+)
Public luxuriesInfluence: Strong
product andbrand
Examples: Golfclubs, snow skis.sailboat
Private luxuriesInfluence: Strong
product andweak brand
Examples: TVgame, trashcompactor.icemaker
Luxury
Private
Relationships with reference group influence:a. Because it is a luxury, influence for the product should
be strong.b. Because it will be seen by others, influence for the
brand of the product should be strong.
2. Privately consumed luxury (PRL)—a product consumedout of public view and not commonly owned or used(e.g.. trash compactor). In many cases, the brand is notconspicuous or socially important and is a matter of in-dividual choice, but ownership of the product does conveya message about the owner (Boume 1957. p. 220).Relationships with reference group influence:a. Because it is a luxury, influence for the product should
be strong.b. Because it will not be seen by others, influence for the
brand of the product should be weak.
3. Publicly consumed necessity (PUN)—a product consumedin public view that virtually everyone owns (e.g., wrist-watch). This group is made up of products that essentiallyall people or a high proponion of people use. althoughdiffering as to type of brand (Boume 1957. p. 220).
Relationships with reference group influence:a. Because it is a necessity, influence for the product
should be weak.b. Because it will be seen by others, influence for the
brand of the product should be strong.
4. Privately consumed necessity (PRN)—a product con-sumed out of public view that virtually ever>'one owns(e.g.. mattress). Purchasing behavior is largely govemedby product attributes rather than by the influences of oth-ers. In this group, neither products nor brands tend to besocially conspicuous and are owned by nearly all con-sumers (Boume 1957. p. 221).
Relationships to reference group influence:a. Because it is a necessity, influence for the product
should be weak.b. Because it will not be seen by others, influence for the
brand of the product should be weak.
These relationships are summarized in a modification ofthe Boume framework in Exhibit A and presented in theform of the following 12 hypotheses for testing. The sixproduct decision hypotheses (H,p- H^ ) reflect the proposi-tion that a luxury-necessity main effect exists, while nosuch effect is postulated for public-private influences. Con-sequently, for product decision comparisons, referencegroup influence is hypothesized to adhere to the followingpattem:
In contrast, for the six brand decision hypotheses, a sig-nificant public-private main effect is hypothesized, whileno such effect is postulated for the luxury-necessity factor.Reference group influence is expected then to follow thepattem embodied in these remaining six hypotheses:
H,b: PUL = PUNHjb: PUL > PRLH,b: PUL > PRNH4b: PUN > PRLHjb: PUN > PRN
PRL = PRN
186 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
METHOD
Preliminary ProceduresTo select products for testing, a preiiminary list of 81
products was developed. This list consisted of approxi-mately 20 items that the authors felt fell into each of thefour conditions described previously. A questionnaire wasconstructed to assess perceptions of the individual productsas publicly or privately consumed and as luxuries or ne-cessities.
A convenience sample of nonstudent adults participatedin this preliminary phase. The questionnaire was adminis-tered door-to-door in a middle-class residential area of Co-lumbia. South Carolina in the spring of 1979. Adults agree-ing to cooperate were given a copy of the survey, andcompleted responses were picked up the following day.One hundred households were initially contacted and a totalof 57 useable responses were collected. Nonrespondentsincluded those who did not complete the questionnaires andpeople not at home when the return visit was made. De-mographic characteristics of the sample were: median ed-ucation. 15 years; median age category. 31 to 35 years; andmedian family income category. $25,000 toS30.000.
Respondents were requested to indicate their perceptionsabout whether the 81 products were, first. luxur>' or neces-sity items, and then, publicly or privately used, on a seriesof six-point scales. The instructions to the instrument de-scribed luxuries as not needed for ordinary, day-to-day liv-ing. Necessities were described as being necessary for or-dinary, day-to-day living. Response categories were labeledand scored as follows: (1) a luxury for everyone. (2) aluxury for almost all people. (3) a luxury for the majorityof people, (4) a necessity for the majority of people. (5) anecessity for almost all people, and (6) a necessity foreveryone.
The same 81 items were assessed by the respondents asbeing publicly or privately consumed. The following defi-nitions were provided:
• A public product is one that other people are aware youpossess and use. If they want to, others can identify thebrand of the product with little or no difficulty.
• A private product is one used at home or in private atsome location. Except for your immediate family, peoplewould be unaware that you own or use the product.
The six-item scales were labeled: (1) a public product foreveryone. (2) a public product for almost all people. (3) apublic product for the majority of people. (4) a privateproduct for the majority of people, (5) a private product foralmost all people, and (6) a private product for everyone.
These two dimensions, i .e. . public-private andluxury-necessity, represent the underiying determinants ofconspicuousness. which Boume assumed to be "the mostgeneral attribute bearing on a product's susceptibility toreference group influence" (1957. p. 218). First, the prod-uct must be conspicuous in the sense that it can be seen andidentified (it is. consequently, presumed to be subject todisapproval). Second, the product must be conspicuous in
TABLE 1
PRETEST MEAN SCORESFOR SIXTEEN PRODUCTS EXAMINED"
Product catgory
Public luxury (PUL)Golf clubsSailboatSnow skisTennis racket
Public necessity (PUN)Mam's suitWoman's dressAutomobileWristwatch
*Pre(e9 results based on convenience sample ol 57 nonstudent adults. Scales werebipolar items labeled public-private and luxury-necessity: scores ranged Irom 1 to 6.
the sense of exclusivity because it is not owned by every one(Boume 1957).
Based on the distribution of the resulting mean scores,four products were selected as representing each of theproduct categories: public-luxury (PUL). public-necessity(PUN), private-luxury (PRL). and private-necessity(PRN). The 16 products selected and their mean scores arepresented in Table 1.
Survey DesignThe research design called for separate reference group
influence evaluations of product and brand decisions for 16products, for a total of 32 evaluations. To have a manage-able questionnaire, it was decided that an individual re-spondent should be required to deal with a total of fourevaluations. Thus, eight different versions of the surveyinstrument were constructed. Four versions contained onlyproduct decisions, and four contained brand decisions. Oneproduct was selected from each of the four categories—PUL. PUN. PRL. and PRN—to make up each of the ver-sions. Thus an individual respondent received a packet con-taining a series of reference group influence questions re-garding either product or brand decisions for four differentproducts representing each of the four categories (i.e.. pub-lic luxury through private necessity). Order of the productcategories was randomized across the eight questionnaireversions to avoid order bias. The questionnaire and sampleconfigurations are illustrated in Exhibit B. This design re-
REFERENCE GROUP INFLUENCE 187
EXHIBIT B
RESEARCH DESIGN LAYOUT
Luxury Necessity
Group 1(n = 88)
Group 2(n = 85)
ProductDeci-sions
Group 3(n = 71)
Group 4
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
PUL(golf clubs)
PRL(pool table)
PUL(tennis racket)
PRL(TV game)
PUL(snow skis)
PRL(icemaker)
PUL(sailboat)
PUN(man's suit)
PRN(refrigerator)
PUN(wristwatch)
PRN(floor lamp)
PUN(automobile)
PRN(mattress)
PUN(woman's dress)
PRL PRNPrivate (trash compactor) (blanket)
BrandDeci-sions
Group 5(n = 82)
Group 6(n = 75)
Group 7(n = 80)
Group 8
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
PUL(golf clubs)
PRL(pool table)
PUL(tennis racket)
PRL(TV game)
PUL(snow skis)
PRL(icemaker)
PUL(sailboat)
PUN(man's suit)
PRN(refrigerator)
PUN(wristwatch)
PRN(floor lamp)
PUN(automobile)
PRN(mattress)
PUN(woman's dress)
PRL PRNPrivate (trash compactor) (blanket)
suits in decisions (product versus brand) and the productconfigurations (e.g.. mattress, automobile, golf clubs) sen--ing as between-subjects factors. The luxury versus necessityand public versus private dimensions represent within-subjects factors.
Reference group influence was assessed using 13 of the14 individual items developed by Park and Lessig (1977.p. 105).' These items were designed to reflect informa-
'One of the eight versions was pretested on a convenience sample of20 nonstudent adults for ease of understanding and completion. Based onthe results of this pretest, several items in the reference group scale wereslightly modified to improve clarity.
tional. value-expressive, and utilitarian reference group in-fluences. Informational reference group influence occurswhen a person actively seeks information from peopleviewed as knowledgeable or observes the behavior of ac-knowledged experts. It is based on the concept of compar-ative influence suggested by Deutsch and Gerard (1955).Value-expressive reference group influence is characterizedby a person behaving in a manner that will improve his orher self-image or create the impression of attachment to thegroup (Kelman 1961). Utilitarian reference group influenceis reflected in compliance to group norms or standards togain rewards or avoid punishments that may be forthcomingfrom the group (Asch 1952).
The individual items were operationalized as six-f)ointbipolar agree(6)-disagree(l) statements. Scales were scoredso that higher values represented greater influence percep-tion. This is in contrast to the four-place "not relevant" to"highly relevant" scales that provided the option of threepositive and one negative position used by Park and Lessig(1977). A balanced six-point scale offered respondents amore complete range of altematives. The sampling proce-dure used by Park and Lessig (1977) in studying house-wives and students involved telephone and mail surveys.This is somewhat different from the panel mailing usedhere, but is similar to the followup study described later.
Respondents were instructed to indicate their degree ofagreement with each item as it applied to product or brandselection decisions. Example items regarding product de-cisions for each of the three reference group subscales fol-low:
• Informational: Ati individual would seek informationabout pool tables from fellow workers who are familiarwith them.
• Value-expressive: An individtial would probably feel thatpurchasing a pool table would enhance his or her imageamong other people.
• Utilitarian: An individual's decision about whether or notto buy a pool table would be influenced by the expectationsof family members.
The three variations of group influence were representedas a summed composite of four informational, five value-expressive, and four utilitarian items. Since the items weredesigned to reflect three types of reference group influence,the individual items were combined to form measures ofinformational, value-expressive, and utilitarian referencegroup influence. Combining items into separate measuresof three constructs was supported across brand and productdecisions by coefficient alpha internal consistency esti-mates.^ An informational influence item referring to inde-
^Average intemal consistency estimates (coefficient alpha) for the prod-uct decisions were 0.63, 0.88, and 0.71 for the informational, value-expressive, and utilitarian subscales, respectively. For the brand decisions,the respective internal consistency estimates averaged 0.70. 0.80, and0.77. Test-retest reliability was assessed using two convenience samplesof 78 and 40 students for one version of the product questionnaire and oneversion of the brand questionnaire in a three-week test-retest administra-tion. All the test-retest correlations were significant (p < 0.01): the averagevalues ranged from 0.53 to 0.68.
188 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 2
OVERALL RESULTS OF MANOVA ANALYSES
Primary study (n = 645)Between-subjects factors
Decision: Product vs. brand (PB)Grouping: Product configuration (PC)Interaction: PB x PC
Within-subjects factorsLuxury vs. necessity (LN)Public vs. private (PP)Interaction: LN x PP
Decision: Product vs. brand (PB)Luxury vs. necessity (LN)Public vs. private (PP)PB X LNPB X PPLN X PPPB X LN X PP
.01 .91 7.44 1 .01 4.01 .05
3.4760.9170.5818.388.03
16.845.52
1111111
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
28.315.98
124.2370.92
.81
.021.25
1111111
.00
.02
.00
.00
.37
.89
.27
28.431.82
31.3625.15
.122.561.69
1111111
.00
.18
.00
.00
.72
.11
.20
•Oitferenees in ((egrees ol hoedom (df) tof product coniiguralion (actor are attributable to use ot only two product combinations in the tollowup study.
pendent testing agencies was omitted because it appearedawkward for some products included in the study.
Data were collected from a mailing to 8(X) members ofa statewide consumer panel during the summer of 1979.Panel households are selected to be representative of urbanand rural residents with annual incomes above 55,000.However, the panel is somewhat upscale as a whole interms of education and income when compared to Bureauof Census averages for the area.
The total sample of 800 was divided into eight subsam-ples of 100. Each subsample was sent one of the eightversions of the questionnaire (see Exhibit B). Followupmailings resulted in 645 completed responses (80 percentuseable response rate). The remaining 20 percent wereequally divided between nonrespondents and incomplete orunuseable replies. Cell sizes ranged from 71 to 88 for thefour product decisions survey, and from 75 to 86 for thefour brand decision evaluations. Comparisons of the de-mographic characteristics of the original 800 with the 645respondents did not suggest significant differences between
'Using the reference group subscales (e.g.. informational) as methodsand the product categories (e .g. , PUL) as traits in an analysis similar tothat reported by Park and Lessig (1977), the reference group subscaleswere further examined using the multitrait-multimethod procedure sug-gested by Campbell and Fiske (1959). The resulting correlations betweenmeasures of the same trait as evidence of convergence suggest that theinformational measures are distinct from the value-expressive and utili-tarian scales. Evidence of discrimination as demonstrated when correla-tions between a measure and another measure on the same trait are greaterthan correlations between measures having neither trait nor method incommon was provided for the product and brand analyses 66 of 72 and65 of 72 times, respectively.
respondents and nonrespondents or unuseable responses.The median family income category and average educationfor the respondents were $18,000 to 524,000 and 14.4years, respectively. This is slightly lower than the profilefor respondents to the pretest questionnaire.
The instructions introducing the questionnaire carefullydistinguished between product and brand decisions. Thiswas followed by an example in which product decisionswere described as those involving a decision whether or notto buy, for example, a color television set. Choosing a colorTV from among Magnavox, RCA, Zenith, and others wasused to exemplify a brand decision. Instructions were thenprovided for responding to a six-point agree-disagree scale.E)epending on whether it was a product or brand decisionquestionnaire, a sample product or brand question about10-speed bicycles was presented, along with a scale to rein-force the type of decision the respondent was to make. Atthe beginning of each section of the questionnaire, thewords "product decisions" or "brand decisions" wereprinted and underlined.
RESULTS
The overall results of the nested design were first ex-amined using repeated measures multivariate analysis ofvariance. These results—along with the results of a fol-lowup study described later—are presented in Table 2. Thetype of decision (product versus brand) approached signif-icance only for the informational reference group influence.Variations in the product configurations (the products in-cluded in each questionnaire) were significant for the value-expressive and utilitarian influence evaluations.
REFERENCE GROUP INFLUENCE 189
The within-subjects factors (i.e., luxury versus necessity,public versus private) and the interactions were all signif-icant across the three reference group subscales, but therewere differences in the pattern of results. Theluxury-necessity dimension of conspicuousness appearedparticularly sensitive regarding respondents' perceptions ofinformational reference group influence {F = 550.98, p< 0.01). In contrast, these overall results suggest that thepublic-private dimension affected value-expressive (f =761.22, p < 0.01) and utilitarian (F = 214.30, p < 0.01)perceptions to a greater degree.
Product Category Comparisons
Differences in responses to the reference group influencescales across the four product categories (e.g., PUL, PUN,PRL, PRN) were examined separately for the product andbrand decisions. The results of the repeated measures anal-ysis of variance are presented in Table 3. In 23 of the 24cases (8 product configurations x 3 influence dimensions),the individual analysis of variance F-values were significant(p < 0.001). These results suggest substantial differencesin consumer perceptions of reference group influence acrossthe four product categories represented by the specific prod-ucts used in this study.
Given these overall differences, individual paired-comparison tests were run for each of the possible pairs ofproduct categories by each type of reference group influ-ence to test the research hypotheses.'' These results, whichare analyzed separately for the product and brand decisions,are provided in Table 4, along with the directional hy-potheses. One-tailed tests were used when direction of in-fluence was hypothesized. A conservative significance level(p < O.OOl) was used to account for the increased proba-bility of finding differences with the large number of in-dividual comparisons.
For the nonequal hypotheses. 21 of 24 comparisons weresignificantly different. Eighteen of these differences werein the hypothesized direction. The three italicized pairs ofvalues in Table 4 represent nonequal hypotheses that werefound to be significantly different but counter to the ex-pected direction. These three significant differences re-flected public necessity-private luxury comparisons.
Eight of the 12 equal hypothesis comparisons were foundto be significantly different. This is not particularly dis-couraging because hypothesizing that two measures areequal for different product categories is a fairly stringentassumption.
In sum, 22 of the 36 comparisons were consistent withthe hypotheses. For the product analyses, these consistentfindings were clustered (5 of 6) in the informational refer-
*In an effort to simplify presentation of the results, the paired-compar-ison hypothesis tests are based on averages across the product configu-rations for the brand and product decisions. Paired i-tests were also runon a product by product basis. These results were consistent with theaverage score results summarized in Table 4.
ence group influences; in the brand analyses, they wereconcentrated in the value-expressive (5 of 6) and utilitarian(5 of 6) reference group influences.
The fact that three types of reference group influenceswere measured does not imply that all three should be pres-ent or absent in an individual case. In fact, it would seemreasonable to find one type of influence operating and theothers absent in a particular situation. For example, in thepurchase of a man's suit, value-expressive influence mightplay a much larger role than either informational or utili-tarian influence. Thus it is reasonable to consider the hy-potheses from the point of view of the presence or absenceof any type of reference group influence. From that per-spective, all six relationships for product decisions and fiveout of six relationships for brand decisions are supportedby the results of the panel study.
Additional Findings
A followup study was conducted in an attempt to partiallyreplicate and extend the findings. The respondents in thepreviously described panel study were exposed to questionsdealing with either product or brand decisions (i.e., the typeof decision was a between-subjects factor). By means ofthe instructions and examples described earlier, care wastaken to stress the distinction between brand and productdecisions. The question is raised, however, whether theresponses reflected differences in the two types of deci-sions. In this followup study, each respondent was askedfirst about reference group influence on product decisions,then about brand decisions. To verify the earlier productselection procedures, manipulation checks were includedat the end of each survey regarding the luxury-necessityand public-private dimensions.
Respondents. Three hundred households selected ran-domly from the telephone directory of a medium-sizedSMSA were contacted by telephone and asked to participatein a study of consumer purchase decisions; 270 agreed torespond to a mail questionnaire. The original phone re-spondents who were willing to participate were randomlyassigned to one of two questionnaire versions. Larger sub-samples than those used in the panel study were felt to bejustified, given the nature of the two samples (i.e., randomphone selection versus a panel survey) and the lower antic-ipated response rate in the followup study. This followupwas based on 151 completed responses (50 percent responserate based on the original telphone sample of 300). Datawere collected from the adult in each household agreeingto participate.
Survey Design. Two of the four product combinationsused in the panel study were selected for this analysis. Twoquestionnaires were constructed, each containing the ref-erence group influence questions regarding product andbrand decisions for four different products representing thefour categories (e.g., PUL). In both questionnaires, productdesign questions preceded brand decision items. Again, the
190 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 3
MEAN SCORES AND SUBGROUP ANOVA RESULTS*
Group/Influence
Product decisions
PUL
Clubs19.8815.9411.96
Racket20.0114.2910.75
Skis19.2013.4410.49
Sailboat21.2218.2912.68
PUN
Suit14.6818.6014.62
Watch17.0111.349.06
Automobile18.7714.6912.13
Dress15.1318.9514.01
PRL
Pool table19.0213.5112.77
TV game19.8210.4010.46
Icemaker18.249.199.57
Trash compactor20.33
9.329.78
Brand decisions
PRN
Refrigerator18.398.499.53
Lamp16.528.619.25
Mattress14.738.109.34
Blanket15.508.218.43
F-value
55.2065.0531.16
37.9330.63
7.30
38.7845.4913.96
67.97123.1342.78
Group 1 88InformationalValue-expressiveUtilitarian
Group 2 85InformationalValue-expressiveUtilitarian
Group 3 71InformationalValue-expressiveUtilitarian
Group 4 78InformationalValue-expressiveUtilitarian
'All F-valuss except one (i.e.. Group 6—Utilftarian) were significant (p < 0.001).
order of the product categories was randomized betweenthe two survey versions.
The reference group influence statements were identicalto those used in the panel study. Each version was mailedto half of the adults agreeing to parcitipate as a result ofthe telephone interview. The completed responses were al-most equally divided (75 and 76) between the two surveyversions.
Reliability and Manipulation Check Estimates. Intemalconsistency was again estimated using coefficient alpha.The estimates averaged 0.64, 0.84, and 0.70 for the infor-mational, value-expressive, and utilitarian subscales, re-spectively. Scaled statements similar to those used in theproduct selection procedure for public-private and
luxury-necessity dimensions were included at the end ofeach questionnaire as manipulation checks. These tests forsignificance regarding the public-private and luxury-necessitydimensions were, for each possible comparison, consistentwith the preliminary product selection procedures. The av-erage /-values were 4.62 for the public-private comparisonsand 18.53 for luxury-necessity comparisons. Specifically,those products selected as representing privately consumedgoods differed significantly from the products perceived asbeing publicly consumed, and the products selected as lux-uries were perceived differently from those selected as ne-cessities.
Results. The followup study data were also examinedin an overall analysis using repeated measures multivariate
•Figures represent scale mean scores combirwd across subgroups. Italics indicate pain represent nonoqual hypotheses signiiicantly diflefent but counter to expected direction."Paired I-tests were signiricantly diflerent (p < O.OOt); ooe-tailad tests \»ere used when direction hypothesized. Inlormational and utilitarian values had possible ranges of 4 to 24; value-
expressive values had a possible range ol 5 to 30.•Equivalent but strong r«lerence group inlluence hypothesized."Equivalent but weak reference group inlluence hypothesized.•Consistent with hypothesized Influence.
analysis of variance. These results are presented in thelower half of Table 2. As in the panel study, differencesin the product configurations used to form the question-naires apparently did affect respondents' perceptions ofvalue-expressive (F = 7.44, p < 0.01) and utilitarian (F= 4.01, p < 0.05) influence. However, unlike the panelstudy, the decision factor (product versus brand) was mar-ginally significant for the informational {F = 3.47, p <0.06) and significant for the value-expressive (F = 28.31,p < 0.01) and utilitarian (F = 28.43, p < 0.01) dimen-sions. It appears that when subjects responded to referencegroup influence questions for both product and brand de-cisions, the distinction affected responses. With the excep-tion of the luxury-necessity factor for utilitarian influence,the two conspicuousness dimensions hypothesized to affectreference group influence perceptions were again signifi-cant.
Differences in responses to the reference group influencescales across the four product categories (e.g., PUL, PUN,PRL, PRN) were again examined separately for the twodecisions. In 10 of the 12 analyses, the F-values were sig-nificant (p < O.(X)1), again suggesting substantial differ-ences in consumer perceptions of reference group influenceacross the four product categories.
The results of the paired-comparison tests for the 12 hy-potheses are shown in Table 5 for both the product andbrand decisions. Based on the followup data, 25 of the 36comparisons were consistent with the hypotheses. For thenonequal hypotheses, only one significant comparison wascounter to the hypothesized direction. Fifteen of the 25paired-comparison tests that were consistent with the ref-erence group influence hypotheses involved the brand de-cision analyses.
DISCUSSION
Summary
The present effort investigated three types of referencegroup influence on product and brand decisions across fourproduct categories delineated by variations in product con-spicuousness. The interaction of public-private consump-tion and luxury-necessity dimensions resulted in four dif-ferent product/brand combinations. Bourne's (1957)original framework hypothesized strong reference group in-fluence for public-luxury product and brand decisions andnegligible influence on private-necessity product and branddecisions. Differential influence was hypothesized forpublic-necessity and private-luxury items.
This study is limited by the normal problems associatedwith a mail survey design and the use of projective re-sponses. A caveat is also appropriate regarding the impli-cations of omitted variables, such as perceived risk andproduct familiarity, as well as other confounding effects.For example, without a more complex design it is impos-sible to tell whether the significant effects for the decisionfactor (product versus brand) in the followup study are dueto demand effects or whether the inclusion of both decisionsfor each respondent resulted in the presence of meaningfuldifferences. Regarding the possibility of confounding ef-fects due to omitted variables, similar efforts in the futureshould consider covariance analysis in attempting to controlfor other influences. This is particularly noteworthy becausethe distinction between luxuries and necessities impliesvarying costs, and hence risk.
Given these limitations, what was leamed about refer-ence group influence? When respondents were faced with
192 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 5
PAIRED-COMPARISON HYPOTHESES AND RESULTS: FOLLOWUP STUDY*
Tigures represent scale mean scores combined across subgroups. Italicized pair ol means represents nonequal hypothesis signilicantly diflerent but counter to expected direction.°Paired (-tests were significantly different (p < 0.001): one-tailed tests ivere used wtwn direction hypothesized. Inlormational and utilitarian values had possitile ranges ol 4 to 24: value-
eipressive values had a possible range ol S to 30.'Equivalent but strong releronce group influence hypothesized.Equivalent but weak reference group influence hypothesized.*Consistent with hypothesized inlluence.
a single decision type (e.g., product versus brand), the de-cision factor was only significant for informational groupinfluence. However, in both studies the absolute valueswere consistently greater for brand choices as opposed toproduct choice decisions. This suggests a greater role forappeals based on reference groups in stimulating selectivedemand. Variations in the sets of products selected affectedperceptions of value-expressive and utilitarian referencegroup influence. The absence of significant informationalreference group effects suggests consistent informationseeking by individuals across similar types of products.
Consistent with Bourne's (1957) framework, the lux-ur>'-necessity and public-private dimensions were consis-tently significant as within-subject factors in both studies.This finding was reflected in substantial differences acrossthe four categories—public luxuries, public necessities, pri-vate luxuries, and private necessities. Nineteen of 36paired-comparison hypotheses were supported in both thepanel and followup study.' Further, if these results are tem-pered by the fact that all three types of reference groupinfluence would not be expected to be operative in all pur-chase situations, the results provide fairly strong evidencefor the need to consider differential effects of referencegroup influence across purchase situations.
Reexamination on a product-by-product basis of both thehypotheses tests and the reliability estimates did not revealany noticeable pattems regarding products with confirmedhypotheses versus products with disconfirmed hypotheses.However, three observations are noteworthy. When con-
'In total, 24 of the meati pairs in terms of direction and significancewere replicated by the followup study.
sidered individually, the two clothing items included aspublic necessities were involved in slightly more of thedisconfirmed hypotheses for product decisions. In general,the hypotheses were more often supported for the branddecisions. Based on the results presented in Tables 4 and5, four of the directional hypotheses were disconfirmed inboth studies. Three of these four were significant and dealtwith public necessity and private luxury comparisons. Forproduct decisions, public necessities were perceived as in-volving more value-expressive and utilitarian influence thanprivate luxuries. This may reflect fear of embarrassmentfrom not owning products which many feel are required fornormal living. Also unexpected from the hypotheses, branddecisions for public necessities involved less informationalinfluences than private luxuries. This may be attributableto the fact that because necessity ownership is so common,less information seeking is necessary.
Unresolved Issues
The processes through which reference group influencesoperate and affect information processing, evaluation ofaltematives, and eventual decision making are in need ofstudy. The extended behavioral intention model (Fishbeinand Ajzen 1975) provides a logical framework for exam-ining many of these interactions. The model is capable ofhandling various types of decisions (e.g., brands versusproducts), incorporating different levels of specificity (e.g.,situational factors and product differences), and is amenableto the use of experimental manipulations. Further, throughexamining salient reference groups at the individual level,the differential role that varying groups may have on anindividual's product and brand decisions can be explored.
REFERENCE GROUP INFLUENCE 193
Situational variations and their impact on the complexityof studying reference group influences on purchase deci-sions also need to be addressed. For example, the purchaseof a product such as beer may be viewed by others, butconsumption may occur in private. Or visitors to the homemay well have the opportunity to identify the brands ofprivate luxuries, hypothesized here to involve weak refer-ence group influence.
As alluded to earlier, future efforts should consider in-cluding other socioeconomic and attitudinal variables,either in covariance designs or as moderator variables. Thispremise is substantiated by the differential effects of ref-erence group influence between housewives and studentsfound by Park and Lessig (1977). Similarly, perceived riskshould increase susceptibility to reference group influencein many instances. Prior experience and knowledge havebeen found to affect product attribute versus brand pro-cessing (Bettman and Park 1980). Likewise, product classfamiliarity may be hypothesized to affect reference groupinfluences. Generalized self-confidence and product-specific self-confidence found relevant in previous studieson infomiation seeking may also inhibit or encourage com-munication about products and brands among referencegroup members (Locander and Hermann 1979).
Finally, the potential for changes in the perceptions ofproducts among consumers and the per\asiveness of prod-uct ownership on reference group influence need to be ac-knowledged. Through promotion, it is possible to associatecertain images with products that might bring referencegroup influence into play (Boume 1957; Lessig and Park1978) under conditions (e.g., private necessities) that mightnot otherwise be expected. In contrast, product diffusionmay shift products over time from exclusive to commonownership, and hence reduce the significance of referencegroup influence.
[Received May 1981. Revised February 1982.]
REFERENCES
Asch, S. (1952), Sociat Psychology. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Pren-tice-Hall.
Bettman, James R. and C. Whan Park (1980). "Effects of PriorKnowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Processon Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis."Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 243-248.
Boume, Francis S. (1957), "Croup Influence in Marketing andPublic Relations," in Some Applications of Behavioral Re-search, eds. R. Likert and S. P. Hayes, Basil, Switzerland:UNESCO.
Brehm, Jack W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance,New York: Academic Press.
Bumkrant, Robert E. and Alain Cousineau (1975). "Informationaland Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior." Journcdof Consumer Research. 2 (December). 206-215.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse. Warren E. Miller, andDonald Stokes (1960). The American Voter, New York: JohnWiley.
Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske (1959), "Convergentand Discriminant Validation by the Multiuait-MultimethodMatrix," Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Clee, Mona and Robert A. Wicklund (1980), "Consumer Behav-ior and Psychological Reactance," Journal of Consumer Re-search, 4, 389-405.
Cocanongher. A. Benton and Grady D. Bruce (1971). "SociallyDistant Reference Groups and Consumer Aspirations," Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 8, 379-381.
Coleman, James S., Elihu Katz, and Herbert Menzel (1966),Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Deutsch, M. and Harold B. Gerard (1955), "A Study of Nor-mative and Informational Social Influences Upon IndividualJudgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51,624-636.
Ford, Jeffry D. , and Elwood A. Ellis (1980), "A Reexaminationof Group Influence on Member Brand Preference," Journalof Marketing Research, 17, 125-132.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief. Attitude, Inten-tion, and Behavior, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
French, John R. P., Jr. and Bertram Raven (1959), "The Basesof Social Power," in Studies in Social Power, ed. DorwinCartwright, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.150-167.
Grubb. Edward L. and Bruce L. Stem (1971). "Self-Concept andSignificant Others." Journal of Marketing Research. 8.382-385.
Hawkins. Del 1., Kenneth A. Coney, and Roger J. Best (1980).Consumer Behavior, New Yorlc: John Wiley.
Hyman. Herbert H. (1942). "The Psychology of Status." Ar-chives of Psychology, 269. 94-102.
and Eleanor Singer (1968). Readings in Reference GroupTheory and Research, New York: The Free Press.
Jones, Edward E. and Harold B. Gerard (1967). Social Psychol-ogy. New York: John Wiley.
Kel ley. Harold H. (1947) . " T w o Functions of ReferenceGroups." in Readings in Social Psychology, eds. Guy E.Swanson. Theodore M. Newcomb. and E. L. Hartley. NewYork: Holt. Rinehart & Winston, 4 1 ( M I 4 .
Kelman. Herbert C. (1961). "Processes of Opinion Change."Public Opinion Quarterly. 25. 57-78.
Kotler. Philip (1980). Marketing Management: Analy.sis. Plan-ning, and Control. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prcntice-Hall.
Kreisberg. Louis (1955), "Occupational Controls Among SteelDistributors." American Journal of Sociology. 56. 203-212.
Lessig. V. Parker and C. Whan Park (1978). "Promotional Per-Sfwctives of Reference Group Influence: Advertising Impli-cations." Journat of Advertising. 7. 41-47.
Locander. William B. and Peter W. Hermann (1979). "The Effectof Self-Confidence and Anxiety on Information Seeking inConsumer Risk Reduction," Journal of Marketing Research.16(May). 268-274.
McNeal, James U. (1973). An Introduction to Consumer Behav-ior, New York: John Wiley.
Merton. Roben K. (1957). "Continuities in the Theor> of Ref-erence Groups and Social Structure," in Social Theory andSocial Structure, ed. Robert K. Merton, New York: The FreePress. 281-368.
and Alice Kitt Rossi (1949). "Contributions to the Theor>'of Reference Group Behavior." in Social Theory and SocialStructure, ed. Robert K. Merton. New York: The Free Press.225-275.
Moschis, George P. (1976). "Social Comparison and Informal
194 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Group Influence," Journal of Marketing Research, 13,237-244.
Newcomb, Tlieodore M. (1943), Personality and Social Change,New York: Dryden, 374-386.
Newcomb, Theodore M. (1950), Social Psychology, New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 225.
Park, C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig (1977), "Students andHousewives: Differences in Susceptibility to ReferenceGroup Influences," Journal of Consumer Research, 4.102-110.
Sherif, Muzafer (1948), An Outline of Social Psychology, NewYork: Harper & Row.
(1953), "The Concept of Reference Groups in HumanRelations," in Croup Relations at the Crossroads, eds. Mu-zafer Sherif and M. O. Wilson, New York: Harper & Row.
- and Carolyn Sherif (1964), Reference Groups. New York:Harper & Row.
Shibutani, Tamotsu (1955), "Reference Groups as Perspectives,"American Journal of Sociology, 60, 562-569.
Smith, M. Brewster, Jerome Bruner, and Robert W. White(1956), Opinions and Personality, New York: John Wiley.
Stafford, James E. (1966), "Effects of Group Influence on Con-sumer Brand Choice Preference," Journal of Marketing Re-search, 3, 68-75.
Turner, Ralph H. (1955), "Reference Groups and Future-OrientedMen," Social Forces, 34, 130-136.
Venkatesan, M. (1966), "Experimental Study of Consumer Be-havior Conformity and Independence," yo«r/ia/ of MarketingResearch. 3, 384-387.
Witt, Robert E. (1969), "Informal Social Group Influence onConsumer Brand Choice," Joumal of Marketing Research,6. 473-^77.
and Grady D. Bruce (1970), "Purchase Decisions andGroup Influence," Journal of Marketing Research, 7,533-535.
and Grady D. Bruce (1972), "Group Influence and BrandChoice Congruence," Journal of Marketing Research, 9.440-443.
