An executive summary for
managers and executive
readers can be found at the
end of this article
Fashion innovativeness
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999, pp. 7-18, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1061-0421
Fashion innovativeness and self-
concept: a replication
Ronald E. Goldsmith
Professor of Marketing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida,
USA
Mary Ann Moore
Associate Professor, Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Pierre Beaudoin
Assistant Professor, Department of Consumer Sciences and Nutrition,
Laval University, Quebec, Canada
Keywords Clothing, Consumer behaviour, Fashion, Image, Innovation,
Marketing strategy
Abstract Describes the results of a survey of 281 adult women in the state of Florida. We
used the 15 adjective pairs of the Malhotra self-concept scale to measure their self-image.
A valid and reliable self-report scale measured their fashion innovativeness, thus
identifying those consumers most likely to buy new fashions after they first appear in the
market. T-tests compared the mean scores on the self-image adjective pairs between 30
innovators and 251 later adopters. Pearson correlation analysis was also performed. The
results of both analyses showed that the fashion innovators described themselves uniquely
as more comfortable, pleasant, contemporary, formal, colorful, and vain than the later
adopters. The results were quite consistent with an earlier published study of college
students, lending confidence to this approach to profiling fashion innovators and
suggesting that using self-image could be a fruitful way to appeal to these important
consumers.
Introduction
Fashion marketers, clothing theorists, and consumer psychologists all study
fashion innovativeness in order to better understand the behavior of fashion
innovators and the process of fashion diffusion. Fashion innovators, after all,
comprise a unique and important segment of the clothing market. They are
among the first buyers of new fashionable apparel when these styles appear
in the marketplace, and their reactions to new fashions may be crucial to the
eventual success or failure of new styles. Although researchers have
examined many of the characteristics of fashion innovators, such as their
demographics and lifestyles, the specific topic of self-image has received
only limited attention. The study described here focussed on the real self-
image of female fashion innovators, that is, how they view themselves and
how their self-image differs from that of later buyers. Anecdotal descriptions
(Lurie, 1981) and some empirical evidence (Gordon et al., 1985) suggest that
fashion innovators should have a different self-image than later fashion
adopters. Our research was motivated by a study of fashion innovators
among college students suggesting they do have a unique self-image
(Goldsmith et al., 1996). We sought to replicate and extend the findings of
their study.
Apparel marketers strive to identify and to appeal to fashion innovators
(Tatzel, 1982; Zandl and Leonard, 1992). The earliest buyers provide much
of the revenue needed by clothing manufacturers to fund development costs
associated with bringing new fashions to market (see Slywotzky and
Morrison, 1997, pp. 41-2). They also spread word-of-mouth information
The authors would like to thank Leisa R. Flynn for her helpful comments on a draft
of this paper.
7
 about new styles and legitimize them when they adopt, thereby influencing
the larger number of later adopters who look to them for information and
influence (Flynn et al., 1996; Martinez and Polo, 1996). Most research into
the distinctive characteristics of fashion innovators has focussed on such
variables as demographics, lifestyles, attitudes, and social communication
(e.g. Cassill and Drake, 1987; Gutman and Mills, 1982; Polegato and Wall,
1980). Apparel marketers can use this information to develop advertising and
promotional appeals that fashion innovators will find especially persuasive
(Millenson, 1985). Knowing that these consumers have a unique self-image
also should help this effort. New apparel advertising, for example, can
feature images congruent with the self-image profile so that fashion
innovators can visualize themselves as they would like to be and like others
to see them (Lurie, 1981; Millenson, 1985).

Female fashion innovators One published study (Goldsmith et al., 1996) found that female fashion
innovators considered themselves more excitable, indulgent, contemporary,
formal, colorful, dominating, and vain than fashion followers. The data in
their survey, however, came exclusively from a convenience sample of 274
college students and therefore lacked generalizability to other populations. In
addition, a single study should not form the basis for generalizations about
consumer behavior; more replication is needed to provide stability for such
conclusions. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to replicate the
Goldsmith et al. (1996) study using data from a more representative sample
of adult women.

Clothing and self-image

Self-concept The broad topic of self-concept refers to the collection of attitudes that
people hold toward themselves. Self-concept includes self-esteem, or the
value with which a person views him- or herself. It also includes self-image,
or the perceptions people have of what they are like. Self-concept in the
sense of self-image is of interest to marketers because many consumers
select products and brands that fit or match their images of themselves.
Brands have personalities or images, and consumers seek those brands that
match their self-image or the image they would like to project to others
(Schiffman and Kanuk, 1997, p. 136; Solomon, 1996, ch. 7). Self-concept
refers to the perceptions and attitudes people have of themselves as objects
(Solomon, 1996, p. 226). Self-concept is important because self-perceptions
motivate behavior, giving control and direction to human performance
(Malhotra, 1988). According to Onkvisit and Shaw (1987), people learn their
self-concepts through their interactions with the external environment,
especially other people; and these thoughts and feelings about self are stable
and consistent. The complex structure of self-concept has many dimensions,
including an actual self, an ideal self, and a social self (Sirgy, 1982); but it is
usually thought of in two ways, an ``ideal'' self-concept (how one would like
to be) and a ``real'' self-concept (how one really is). Some discussions of self-
concept also refer to other dimensions such as a social self, ideal social self,
and expected self-image (e.g. Schiffman and Kanuk, 1997, pp. 136-7). There
is even a theory of the extended self, or the objects that surround a person
(Belk, 1988). Self-concept may influence how consumers view advertising,
brands, salespeople, and the ways they interact with these stimuli (Onkvisit
and Shaw, 1987). Consumers frequently buy products that are congruent
with or enhance either their actual or ideal self-concepts (Malhotra, 1988;
Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987; Sirgy, 1982). Self-image may be an especially
important concept to study in the context of fashion behavior because of the

8 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999


Clothing research
Innovative buyer behaviour
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999
importance clothing has in the formation and exhibition of self (Davis, 1985;
Evans, 1989; Lurie, 1981).
Clothing theorists have always devoted special attention to understanding the
motivations and behaviors of fashion innovators. This research stream is
quite extensive (see Sproles, 1985), covering values, attitudes, behaviors,
and includes how fashion innovators think of themselves. For instance, one
study shows that fashion innovativeness is associated with self-perceived
animation, friendliness, impression leaving, and drama (Gordon et al., 1985).
This aspect of clothing research is very appropriate for the application of
self-image theory. Clothing, especially fashionable apparel, often represents
an important symbolic consumption area for consumers. Regardless of their
level of disposable income, some consumers will spend more on clothing
that says something important about them. The clothes consumers wear tell
other people how much status they have, how sexy they are, and what kind of
person is inside the clothes (Lurie, 1981). For example, is the wearer
professional, successful, casual, indifferent, or stylish? Clothing will often fit
into a ``consumption constellation'' or a set of products used by consumers to
define, communicate, and perform social roles (Solomon, 1988). The study
of fashion innovativeness and self-image, however, lacks specificity and
consistency derived from standardized measures. Most of the literature on
this topic is either anecdotal or too general to be of real value. Many women
may be less interested in style for its own sake and more concerned with
what their clothing says about them. But, saying that women interested in
fashionable clothing see themselves as romantic or sexy without supporting
empirical evidence is only suggestive and cannot form a scientific
generalization about fashion behavior. The evidence from empirical research
will provide a more informative view of innovative fashion behavior.
Consumer psychologists have studied innovative behavior across a range of
product fields in order to describe the general characteristics of these unique
buyers, to explain their motives, and to integrate innovative purchasing into
more comprehensive models of buyer behavior (Foxall, 1984; Schiffman and
Kanuk, 1997, ch. 18; Solomon, 1996, ch. 10). As more is learned about
clothing innovators, this information can be compared with findings from
studies of other product fields and integrated into the general body of
findings about innovative buyer behavior. In the specific instance of self-
image research, an important question is whether innovators across different
product fields have the same self-image, or whether innovator self-image
differs as the product category differs.
Method
Our data came from a mailed survey. The participants were a random list of
2,000 women between 18 and 25 years of age living in Florida purchased
from a commercial mailing list company. The instrument was mailed with a
cover letter and stamped pre-addressed envelope for return of the completed
instrument. A total of 285 questionnaires were returned; however, two were
unusable. The 283 usable questionnaires represented a 14.15 percent
response rate.
The respondents ranged in age from 18-83, but over 90 percent were 30 or
younger[1] (M = 25.5; SD = 6.5). Eighty percent were white, 9 percent
Hispanic, 6 percent black, and the rest ``other''[2]. Fifty-four percent were
married or living with someone. Twenty-five percent had a college degree,
and 9 percent had some graduate education or a graduate degree.
9
 The questionnaire contained measures for age, level of education, race, and
marital status as well as three fashion behavior questions. The latter asked for
an average month how much money the respondent spent on clothes, how
many times she went clothes shopping, and how many fashion magazines
she read. We measured fashion innovativeness with the Goldsmith and
Hofacker (1991) domain specific innovativeness scale (DSI), a valid and
reliable measure (Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992). It contains six Likert-type
items. One item reads: ``compared with my friends I own few new fashion
items.'' Higher scores indicate greater fashion innovativeness.

Self-image Self-image was measured with Malhotra's (1981) self-concept scale. This
scale consists of 15 bipolar adjectives (see Table I) with seven response
points. It was developed as a valid and reliable scale created to measure self-
concepts, person concepts, and product concepts. Malhotra (1981) used
multiple samples, multiple stimuli, and several analytic procedures to
enhance the validity of this scale. We used Malhotra's scale because it was
developed using rigorous analytic procedures, it is proposed as appropriate
for market research, and a body of findings using the scale is accumulating,
permitting cross-product comparisons. Both the domain specific
innovativeness scale and the Malhotra self-concept scale were the same ones
used by Goldsmith et al. (1996).

Analysis and results

For the 281 respondents who provided responses to all six DSI items,
summed scores on the scale ranged from 6-30, covering the theoretical
range. The mean score was 16.5 (SD = 5.5), close to the theoretical mean
of 18. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample test showed that the null
hypothesis that these scores were normally distributed about their mean
with this variance could not be rejected (p = 0.23). Coefficient alpha for
the DSI was 0.78, adequate for our research purposes (see Peterson,
1994). The distribution of DSI scores was split so that the 251
respondents (or 89.3 percent) scoring between 6 and 23 were designated
``fashion followers'', and the 30 respondents (10.7 percent) who scored

Mean scores
Non-
Variable Leaders leaders t p-value r
Rugged/delicate 4.5 4.3 ±0.85 0.395 0.10
Excitable/calm 3.6 3.7 0.18 0.854 ±0.08
Uncomfortable/comfortable 5.8 5.2 ±2.20 0.028 0.09
Dominating/submissive 3.4 3.5 0.52 0.605 ±0.02
Thrifty/indulgent 3.8 3.4 ±1.20 0.233 0.23*
Pleasant/unpleasant 1.4 2.0 2.98 0.003 ±0.18*
Contemporary/noncontemporary 2.4 3.0 2.19 0.29 ±0.32*
Organized/unorganized 2.2 2.5 0.97 0.333 ±0.16*
Rational/emotional 4.4 4.0 ±1.06 0.289 ±0.04
Youthful/mature 4.7 4.6 ±0.47 0.638 0.08
Formal/informal 3.4 4.5 3.81 0.000 ±0.32*
Orthodox/liberal 4.9 4.8 ±0.16 0.869 0.05
Complex/simple 3.5 3.9 1.24 0.215 ±0.04
Colorless/colorful 6.3 5.6 ±2.91 0.004 0.17*
Modest/vain 4.0 3.0 ±3.86 0.000 0.24*

Note: Each self-concept item was scaled from 1 = extreme left adjective and
7 = extreme right adjective *p < 0.05
Table I. T-tests and correlations for self-concept scale

10 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999


Unique self-image
Pearson correlation
analysis
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999
between 24 and 30 were designated ``fashion innovators''. We used t-tests to
compare the mean scores on the 15 self-image items between these two
groups.
While this split may seem arbitrary, it represented a natural break in the
distribution; and these high scoring respondents had to have ``agreed'' or
``strongly agreed'' with most of the six DSI items. Moreover, designating
about 10 percent of the sample as ``fashion innovators'' does correspond
closely with theories of consumer innovativeness (Foxall, 1984) and of
fashion leadership (Sproles, 1985) and with empirical studies that view
fashion leaders as a minority of clothing consumers (e.g. Forsythe et al.,
1991). The t-test is appropriate for comparing differences in group means,
treating these two groups as market segments. We also performed a
correlation analysis of individual behavior that examined the relationship
between each adjective self-image score and the entire distribution of fashion
innovativeness scores (Bass et al., 1968). We report the first-order partial
correlations between the 15 self-concept item scores and the DSI scores with
age as the control variable[3]. The results of both analyses are shown in
Table I where they appear to be quite consistent.
The results show that female fashion innovators do have a unique self-image,
differing from the other consumers on six of the 15 adjective pairs. Their t-
test scores reveal that they view themselves as more comfortable, pleasant,
contemporary, formal, colorful, and vain than the later adopters. In addition,
the correlation coefficients suggest that fashion innovativeness is associated
with the adjectives indulgent and organized, as well. Five of these
characteristics, indulgent, contemporary, formal, colorful, and vain, were
identical to those distinguishing adjectives reported in the Goldsmith et al.
(1996) study. The only differences in the results between these two studies
are that:
(1) Goldsmith et al. (1996) found ``excitable'' and ``dominating'' to be self-
ascribed characteristics of college student innovators; and
(2) the present study found the adjectives ``pleasant'' and ``organized'' to be
self-ascribed. Note that Goldsmith et al. (1996) did discuss weak
evidence suggesting that ``pleasant'' might be one of the distinguishing
adjectives.
Additional analyses using Pearson correlation and contingency table analysis
showed that fashion innovativeness was unrelated to the age, educational
level, marital status, or race of the respondents. Scores on the DSI, however,
were significantly correlated with self-reported spending (0.52), fashion
magazine readership (0.32), and time spent shopping for clothing (0.28),
supporting the validity of this measure. Thus, demographic characteristics
did a poor job of describing the fashion innovators in this study, and
demographic differences among the respondents are not likely to underlie the
observed differences in self-image they report; but the innovators did have a
unique self-image similar to that reported by Goldsmith et al. (1996) among
a sample of college students. The findings of the present study, however, are
based on a sample of adult women shoppers. This allowed us to examine the
influence of demographic characteristics on the relationship between fashion
innovativeness and self-image, and there is greater external validity for these
findings.
11
 Summary
The present study examined the self-image of female fashion innovators
among a sample of adult consumers aged 18-83 years old. The purpose was
to replicate a previous study of college students that described female
fashion innovators as more excitable, indulgent, contemporary, formal,
colorful, dominating, and vain than fashion followers. The results of the
present study largely support these findings, with the fashion innovators
describing themselves as more comfortable, pleasant, contemporary, formal,
colorful, and vain than the later adopters. The results differed little between
the two studies, although the samples were demographically different. If
future studies support these findings researchers may be able to state some
important generalizations about female fashion innovators.

Managerial implications and recommendations

Fads and fashion trends Apparel marketers can use information about the self-image of fashion
innovators to improve their brand/product marketing strategies. For instance,
this information might enable them to distinguish mere fads from longer-
lived fashion trends and gain real differential advantage for their brands
(Letscher, 1994; Zandl and Leonard, 1992). New styles that are congruent
with fashion innovator self-image should form longer-lasting trends than
those appealing simply to the desire for novelty. Marketers benefit from
understanding their consumers' priorities, from understanding what is
important to consumers (Slywotzky and Morrison, 1997, pp. 23-4). Clothing
is important to the self-image of consumers (Lurie, 1981). Thus, the more
marketers know about the motives, attitudes, values, and needs of innovative
consumers, the better able they will be to market successfully to them.
Apparel marketers can use advertising to tailor the product positions of their
new fashion items for the innovator segment, giving them attractive images,
by emphasizing how these match the self-image as well as lifestyles of the
innovators, as suggested by self-concept theory (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987;
Sirgy, 1982).

Fashion innovators influence the behavior of later buyers by wearing new

fashions for others to see and by spreading word-of-mouth about them
(Martinez and Polo, 1996). Apparel marketers thus try to reach the fashion
innovators through the mass media and depend on them to legitimize
fashions for later adopters. Much fashion advertising conveys the idea that
the clothes are ``fun and sexy.'' Perhaps these ads should also suggest that the
new styles reflect self-indulgence and vanity as well. This might make them
more appealing to fashion innovators and hence speed up their acceptance.

Not exclusively younger In this study demographic characteristics did a poor job of distinguishing the
women fashion innovators. The findings suggest that fashion innovators are not
exclusively younger women, and that interest in new fashions may diminish
little with age (cf. Goldsmith and Stith, 1990; Solomon and Douglas, 1985).
Marketers, however, often rely heavily on demographics to identify crucial
innovative segments (Martinez and Polo, 1996; Zandl and Leonard, 1992).
As more evidence accumulates describing the fashion innovator, it may
prove to be the case that, although demographics may be good predictors of
some aspects of consumer behavior, demographics can be replaced by other
characteristics that more clearly and precisely show who the fashion
innovators are and what they are like. Some studies do show that fashion
innovators can be identified through their greater-than-average interest in
new fashions, exposure to fashion-relevant media, and heavier spending for
new fashions (Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992; Goldsmith et al., 1991). The

12 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999


Mystery to the clothing
industry
Consumer psychologists
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999
cumulative effect of self-image research will provide a more detailed profile
of this market segment, reflecting as it does a unique self-image to
accompany other characteristics of female fashion innovators, such as their
lifestyles and values, thus forming a more veridical and useful profile.
The design of new fashions might also benefit from knowing more about the
self-image of the target market. Which new fashions consumers find
attractive and which they reject has always proved a mystery to the clothing
industry. It may be that apparel manufacturers should depend less on the
creative whims of designers to develop new fashions and adopt a more
``industrial'' model, such as the new product development process (Foxall
1984). Recent discussions of the new product development process have
focused on the use of development teams and ``lead users'' as a source of
input for new product ideas (Pitta et al., 1996). Knowing more about the self-
image of the target market might benefit the designs of new fashion.
Fashion theory and consumer behavior
Fashion theorists can use the information in this study to expand their
understanding of female fashion innovativeness. One interesting feature of
the present study is its finding that demographic characteristics did a poor
job of distinguishing fashion innovators from later adopters. While
demographics may be important in describing and predicting purchase of
new big ticket items, clothing may be a more personal category of purchase.
Consequently, other methods of measurement, such as the DSI, may be more
effective in identifying these consumers. This finding also suggests that
hypothetical constructs such as attitudes, personality, values, and self-image
may be the best ways to describe and explain this innovative consumer
behavior.
Consumer psychologists also benefit from this research. They combine the
results of studies of innovative behavior across many product fields to
establish generalizations about innovative consumer behavior. Little is
known about the motives driving innovative behavior. It is more than simple
novelty seeking. Consumer innovators seek unique meaning in the brands
they buy. By describing self-image difference between innovators and non-
innovators, this research expands the scope of the description of consumer
innovators and sheds light on the motives behind their behavior.
Limitations and future research
Like the earlier study, the present one has its limitations. The data came from
a single sample of women in the state of Florida. Although the initial mailing
list was a random sample, the low response rate made the effective sample
unrepresentative of any specific population. Other samples of consumers
might yield different results. Although the size of the effects reported here
are small, they are comparable in size to those reported by Goldsmith et al.
(1996) and such effect sizes are common in studies of personality
characteristics and consumer behavior (Foxall and Goldsmith, 1988). While
several published studies (e.g. Goldsmith et al., 1998) have shown the
domain specific innovativeness scale to be reliable and valid, any such
research may suffer from mono-operation bias, meaning that another
operationalization of consumer innovativeness might not yield the same
results. Also, the Malhotra (1981) self-concept scale was the only measure of
self-image used. Other measures of self-image would yield different profiles
if they contained different descriptive adjectives (e.g. Gordon et al., 1985).
The high level of agreement between the present study and the one it was
13
 intended to replicate, however, lends some confidence to the findings. If
these are supported by subsequent research, they will contribute to our
understanding of fashion innovativeness by enriching the profile that can be
drawn of female fashion innovators.

Future research Future research should systematically extend this approach to studying
fashion innovativeness. Data from other age and geographic groups of
women would extend the findings. Male fashion innovators should also be
studied. Goldsmith et al. (1996) showed that male and female college
students had similar self-image profiles. This suggests that the motives for
following and acquiring new fashions may be similar for the two sexes.
Additional research is needed to explore this possibility. Researchers should
study fashion innovativeness among populations other than those in the
USA. A truly scientific description of consumer innovativeness should not be
limited to US consumers. Empirical research is needed to demonstrate that
self-image differences such as the ones identified here lead to different
behaviors by fashion innovators. These behaviors would include preferences
for types of advertising, reactions to promotional appeals, and acceptance of
new fashions judged congruent with their self-image.

This stream of research has focussed on real-self image. Future studies

should also consider the ideal self-image of fashion innovators and how it
may differ from that of later adopters. The relative impact of real versus ideal
self-image on fashion behavior should be assessed. Finally, the results of
fashion studies should be combined with those of studies of self-image in
other product categories. Are there similarities between the self-images of
fashion innovators and innovators in other product fields? Answering this
question could tell us much about the nature of consumer innovativeness
itself.

Notes
1. The mailing list was either inaccurate or somewhat out of date, or some survey recipients
passed the questionnaire on to other women who may have been older (see note 2). The
sample was certainly younger than the Florida population, whose median age is 36 years
according to the 1990 census.
2. The proportions of Floridians by race, according to the 1990 census, are 83.1 percent
white, 13.6 percent black, and 12.0 percent Hispanic. Thus, black consumers may be
under-represented in this sample. There were also more college graduates than in Florida
as a whole (25 percent versus 18.6 percent), and more reported postgraduate degrees
(9 percent versus 6.3 percent).
3. This analysis seemed appropriate because there was age variation in the sample and age
of respondent might reasonably be assumed to influence both fashion innovativeness and
self-image. In fact, age was uncorrelated with fashion innovativeness (r = ±0.08, ns) and
was significantly (p < 0.05) correlated only weakly with some of the adjective ratings.
Older respondents revealed that they viewed themselves as more calm (0.14), submissive
(0.13), thrifty (±0.22), rational (±0.18), informal (0.12), orthodox (±0.14), and simple
(0.15) than younger respondents. There were virtually no differences between the zero-
order correlations and the first-order partial correlations shown in Table I. In an additional
analysis, we selected only the survey respondents aged 30 years and younger and repeated
the t-tests. These results were virtually identical to the ones reported in Table I.

References
Bass, F.M., Tigert, D.J. and Lonsdale, R.T. (1968), ``Market segmentation: group versus
individual behavior'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 264-70.
Belk, R.W. (1988), ``Possessions and the extended self'', Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-68.

14 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999

 Cassill, N.L. and Drake, M.F. (1987), ``Apparel selection criteria related to female consumers'
lifestyle'', Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 20-8.
Davis, F. (1985), ``Clothing and fashion as communication'', in Solomon, M.R (Ed.), The
Psychology of Fashion, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 15-27.
Evans, M. (1989), ``Consumer behaviour towards fashion'', European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 7-16.
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.E. (1996), ``Opinion leaders and opinion seekers:
two new measurement scales'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 137-47.
Forsythe, S., Butler, S. and Kim, M.S. (1991), ``Fashion adoption: theory and pragmatics'',
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 8-15.
Foxall, G.R. (1984), Corporate Innovation, St Martin's Press, New York, NY.
Foxall, G.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1988), ``Personality and consumer research: another look'',
Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 111-25.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1992), ``Identifying innovators in consumer product
markets'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 42-55.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), ``Measuring consumer innovativeness'', Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-21.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Stith, M.T. (1990), ``Psychological age and fashion innovativeness'',
Academy of Marketing Science Proceedings, Vol. 13, pp. 432-6.
Goldsmith, R.E., d'Hauteville, F. and Flynn, L.R. (1998), ``Theory and measurement of
consumer innovativeness: a transnational evaluation'', European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 3/4, pp. 340-53.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Moore, M.A. (1996), ``The self-concept of fashion leaders'',
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 242-8.
Goldsmith, R.E., Heitmeyer, J.R. and Freiden, J.B. (1991), ``Social values and fashion
leadership'', Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Gordon, W.I., Infante, D.A. and Braun, A.A. (1985), ``Communicator style and fashion
innovativeness'', in Solomon, M.R. (Ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA, pp. 161-75.
Gutman, J. and Mills, M.K. (1982), ``Fashion life style, self-concept, shopping orientation, and
store patronage: an integrative analysis'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58, pp. 64-86.
Letscher, M.G. (1994), ``How to tell fads from trends'', American Demographics, December,
pp. 38-41, 44-5.
Lurie, A. (1981), The Language of Clothes, Random House, New York, NY.
Malhotra, N.K. (1981), ``A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts and product
concepts'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 456-64.
Malhotra, N.K. (1988), ``Self-concept and product choice: an integrated perspective'', Journal
of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, March, pp. 1-28.
Martinez, E. and Polo, Y. (1996), ``Adopter categories in the acceptance process for consumer
durables'', Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 34-45.
Millenson, J.S. (1985), ``Psychosocial strategies for fashion advertising'', in Solomon, M.R.
(Ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 99-105.
Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J. (1987), ``Self-concept and image congruence: some research and
managerial implications'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Peterson, R.A. (1994), ``A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 381-91.
Pitta, D.A., Franzak, F. and Katsanis, L.P. (1996), ``Redefining new product development:
learning to actualize consumer contributions'', Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 48-58.
Polegato, R., and Wall, M. (1980), ``Information seeking by fashion opinion leaders and
followers'', Home Economics Research Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 327-38.
Schiffman, L. and Kanuk, L. (1997), Consumer Behavior, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Sirgy, J.M. (1982), ``Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300.

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999 15

 Slywotzky, A.J. and Morrison, D.J. (1997), The Profit Zone: How Strategic Business Design
will Lead You to Tomorrow's Profits, Times Business, New York, NY.
Solomon, M.R. (1988), ``Mapping product constellations: a social categorization approach to
symbolic consumption'', Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 233-58.
Solomon, M.R. (1996), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Solomon, M.R. and Douglas, S.P. (1985), ``The female clothes-horse: from aesthetics to
tactics'', in Solomon, M.R. (Ed.), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA, pp. 387-401.
Sproles, G.B. (1985), ``Behavioral science theories of fashion'', in Solomon, M.R. (Ed.), The
Psychology of Fashion, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 55-69.
Tatzel, M. (1982), ``Skill and motivation in clothes shopping: fashion-conscious, independent,
anxious, and apathetic consumers'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 4, Winter, pp. 90-7.
Zandl, I. and Leonard, R. (1992), Targeting the Trendsetting Consumer, Business One Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
&

16 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 1, 1999