Exploring the Trait of Competitiveness and Its Consumer Behavior ...

Society for Consumer Psychology

Exploring the Trait of Competitiveness and Its Consumer Behavior Consequences Author(s): John C. Mowen Source: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1/2 (2004), pp. 52-63 Published by: Society for Consumer Psychology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1480372 Accessed: 13/04/2010 15:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socconpsych. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for Consumer Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

JOURNALOF CONSUMERPSYCHOLOGY,14(1&2), 52-63 Copyright? 2004, LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Exploringthe Traitof Competitivenessand Its ConsumerBehaviorConsequences John C. Mowen RegentsProfessor and Noble Chair of MarketingStrategy College of BusinessAdministration OklahomaState University

modelapproach, thetraitof competitiveness wasinvestigated Usinga hierarchical personality in 3 studies.Theresultsrevealedthatcompetitiveness maybe positivelyassociatedwithconinthreecontexts:(a)bestingothersdirectlyin contests(e.g.,playing sumerbehaviors occurring others (b) indirectlythroughvicariousexperiences(e.g.,observingsportsas a sports), besting fanorwatchingdrama-based movies),and(c) bestingothersviatheconspicuous consumption electronicproducts). innovative of materialgoods(e.g.,purchasing Competitionis deeply embeddedin the society of the United States. In its capitalistic system, corporations compete against each other in a free market.In its adversariallegal system, plaintiffsanddefendantscompete againsteach other to win the verdictsof juries andjudges. Withincorporations, promotionsand the level of compensationof executives and sales personnelare frequentlybased on competition. Anecdotalevidence suggests thatcompetitionalso occurs withinthe realmof consumerbehavior.The goal of defeating othersis foundin a diverseset of sportsandgames frombaseball, to duplicatebridge,to chess, to poker.Competitiveness can lead to strangebehaviors.For example,contests areheld to see who can consume the most hot dogs or pies. As reportedby the humoristDave Barry,threeradiopersonalities in Austin, Texas,swallowed dimes. The firstto have the coin emerge from his intestinaltrackwon the contest. In orderto tracktheirprogress,they broughta portableX-ray machine into the radio studio (Barry,1998). The traitof competitivenesshas been defined as "theenjoyment of interpersonalcompetition and the desire to win and be better than others" (Spence & Helmreich, 1983, p. 41). Muchof the researchon competitivenesshas employeda scale developedby Helmreichand Spence (1978) and investigatedphenomenaunrelatedto consumerbehavior.For example,researchersemployedthe scale to investigatethe relation between traitcompetitivenessand nationalwealth. In a survey of 14,000 college studentsin 42 countries,Furham, Kirkcaldy,and Lynn (1996) found that traitcompetitiveness

was negatively related to an index of human development. The authorssuggestedthatthe respondentsreactedto a lower level of economic developmentby exhibitinghigherlevels of competitiveness.Terpstra,Rozell, and Robinson (1994) investigatedthe reactionsof college studentsto eight ethicaldilemmas that offered the possibility of engaging in insider trading.The authorsfound that the students' level of trait competitiveness,as measuredby the Helmreichand Spence (1978) scale, was positively associatedwith propensityto indicate thatthey would engage in insidertrading. The Helmreich and Spence (1978) scale has been employed in research published in the marketing literature. Brown and Peterson(1994) found that traitcompetitiveness was a significantpredictorof job performancein a personal selling context. Brown, Cron,and Slocum (1998) found that traitcompetitivenessinteractedwith a measureof organizationalclimate.The resultsrevealedthatgoals were set higher and performance was highest under conditions in which salespersonspossessed high levels of traitcompetitiveness, and the organizationalclimate emphasizedcompetitiveness as well. Brown et al. (1998) concludedthatthereis a consistentpositive relationbetween competitivenessand workperformance. Although trait competitivenesshas been investigatedin relationto its effects on performancein worksettings,empirical studies on the role of trait competitivenessin the consumerdomainare virtuallyabsent.Carver(1915), in his Essays in Social Justice speculatedthat

Requests for reprints should be sent to John C. Mowen, e-mail: [email protected]

Whenwe come to the field of competitiveconsumption, however, there is little that can be said in defense of it. It is the

BEHAVIOR 53 ANDCONSUMER COMPETITIVENESS resultof thelowestandleastdefendable qualityin humannaor ture.Itis theresultof thedesireto outshineourneighbors, to avoidbeingoutshoneby them.(pp.91-92) In his work on conspicuous consumption, Veblen (1899) suggested that buying clothing and jewelry for one's wife acts as an advertisement for the self. Commenting on Veblen's work, Belk (1988) stated:"Althoughtoday's families are less patriarchalthan those of Veblen's day, the tendency to vicariously consume throughthose who are a part of the extended self perhaps is not dissimilar" (p. 157). These ideas suggest that conspicuous consumptionmay occur either directly or vicariously in the purchase of consumer goods. In his developmentof the meta-theoreticalmodel of motivation and personality(3M model), Mowen (2000) investigated competitivenessin a series of studies within the domain of consumerbehavior.He ran a series of hierarchical regression analyses in which the dependent variable in Model 1 was predictedby a set of eight basic traits,andcompetitivenesswas addedto the eight traitpredictorsin Model 2. (These eight traitsare identifiedin the next section of this article.) Throughthis procedure,the ability of competitiveness to accountfor variancein the outcomevariablecould be assessed after accounting for the effects of the more basic traits. He found that competitivenesswas a significantpredictor of the following variables:sports interest, impulsive buying behavior(Puri, 1996), attentionto social comparison information (Lennox and Wolfe, 1984), and bargaining proneness(Mowen, 2000). One problemwith the researchof Mowen (2000) is thathe failed to propose a rationalefor identifying the contexts in which competitivenessimpacts consumerbehavior.Our researchcontributesto the literatureby proposingthatthe motive to win and defeat others may influence consumers in three domains: (a) direct competitionsin which one person wins and anotherloses (e.g., sportsinterestand gamblinginterest), (b) situationsin which winning and losing is experienced vicariously (e.g., fan interest and dramamovie interest), and (c) situations in which consumers engage in conspicuous consumption (e.g., innovativenessin purchasing electronicproductsand automobiles). A secondarycontributionof the presentresearchinvolves exploringthe natureof hierarchicalpersonalitymodels. Researchershave previously proposed hierarchicalmodels in the consumerbehavior (e.g., Joachimsthaler& Lastovicka, 1984; Lastovicka, 1982) and psychology literatures(e.g., Paunonen, 1998). In performingthe data analyses for the present research,a phenomenonwas found in one study in which VariableB appearsto mediateVariableA. However,in anotherstudy(using a differentdependentvariable),Variable A appearsto mediateVariableB. An explanationfor these inconsistentfindings is proposedand discussed in termsof the importance of theory in the development of hierarchical models.

The next section presentsa hierarchicalmodel of personality developedby Mowen (2000), which providesthe theoretical structurefor the research.

BACKGROUNDTHEORY In an academicresearchbook, Mowen (2000) developedthe 3M model. The approachintegratescontroltheory(Carver& Scheier, 1990), evolutionarypsychology principles (Buss, 1988), and elements of hierarchicaltrait theory (Allport, 1961; Paunonen,1998) to develop the 3M model. The book includeda chapteron competitiveness. Based in part on Paunonen (1998), the 3M model proposes thatpersonalitytraitsare arrangedin a four-levelhierarchy.Althoughotherconsumerresearchershave previously proposed hierarchical models (e.g., Joachimsthaler & Lastovicka, 1984; Lastovicka, 1982), the 3M model is the first to provide a general scheme for classifying the level at which a particulartraitresides. From the most abstractlevel to the most concretelevel, the fourlevels arelabeled elemental traits, compound traits, situational traits, and surface traits. Elemental Traits Residing at the most abstractlevel, elemental traits are the most basic and enduring cross-situationalpredispositions. Five of the eight elementaltraitswere derivedfrom Saucier's (1994) version of the five-factormodel of personality.These five traitsare opennessto experience,conscientiousness,extroversion (measured as introversion), agreeableness, and emotional instability. Using an evolutionary perspective, threeadditionalelementaltraitswere proposed:the need for body resources, material resources, and arousal. Mowen (2000) confirmedthe eight elementaltraitsvia confirmatory factor analysis in a series of five studies. The Appendix shows the measuresof the elementaltraitsandthe otherconstructsemployed in the research. Compound Traits and the Need to Compete Conceptuallysimilar to Allport's (1961) central traits (see also Mowen & Spears,1999), compoundtraitsaredefinedas cross-situationalpredispositionsto act emergingfrom the interplayof elementaltraits,culture,subculture,and the learning history of the individual. They are labeled compound traitsbecause they resultin partfrom combinationsof two or more elemental traits.In addition,compoundtraitsaccount for significantamountsof variancein situationaland surface traitsafter the effects of the elemental traitsare statistically removed. Thus even though composed in part of elemental traits, they also have additional properties that influence more concretetraits.An example of a compoundtraitis the need for activity.A meta-analysisof five studies by Mowen

54

MOWEN

(2000) revealed that the elemental traits of conscientiousness, agreeableness,need for body resourceneeds, need for arousal,andintroversion(negativerelation)accountedfor an averageof 40% of the variancein need activity. Mowen (2000) developed a scale to measurethe need to compete and proposedthatit resides at the compoundlevel. In a studyof 218 universitystudents,he foundthatthe correlationbetween the need-to-competescale andthe Helmreich and Spence (1978) competitiveness scale was r = .89. A meta-analysis revealed that the need for arousal, material needs, emotionalinstability,need for body resources,conscientiousness,andagreeableness(negativerelation)accounted for an averageof 39% of the variancein competitiveness. Situational Traits Situationaltraitsare defined as enduringdispositionsto express consistentpatternsof behaviorwithin a general situational context. Mowen (2000) proposedthat these traitsresult from the effects of elemental and compound traits as well as the pressuresto act resulting from the influence of the situationalcontext. Because the focus of the presentresearchis on competitivenessand its effects on consumer-related surface variables, no situational traits were selected for investigation in this research. Examples of situational traits investigatedby Mowen (2000) are value consciousness (Lichtenstein,Netemeyer,& Burton, 1990) and health motivation (Moorman & Matulich, 1993). Surface Traits At the most concretelevel aresurfacetraits,which areenduring dispositionsto behavewithin category-specificcontexts. Resultingfromthejoint effects of elemental,compound,and situationaltraitsas well as the press of the specific situational context, surface traits have strong behavioraland affective components.Because surfacetraitsmeasureenduringdispositions to displayspecific behavioralpatterns,they arehighly predictiveof outcome variables.In the presentresearch,the following surfacetraits are investigated:sports interest,fan interest,auto-buyinginnovativeness,gamblingparticipation, electronic-productinnovativeness,and enduringpreferences for the dramamovie genre. These constructswere selected because they representexamples of behaviorsinvolving direct competition(sports interest and gambling interest),vicariouscompetition(fan interest,dramamovie preferences), and conspicuous consumption (electronic-product and auto-buyinginnovativeness). CURRENT RESEARCH In my researchthe hierarchicalstructureof the 3M model is employedto investigatethreedomainswithinwhich competitiveness may impact consumer behavior.The selection of

the consequencesof competitivenesswas guidedby threesituationalcontexts in which the motivationto win and defeat others may impact consumer behavior.First, based on the definitiondeveloped by Spence and Helmreich(1983), it is proposedthathigher levels of competitivenessmay be associated with the selection of consumeractivities that place a directpremiumon winning anddefeatingothers.Withinthis domain,the two contextsselectedfor investigationaresports participationand gambling. That is, in a sports contest the goal is to defeat an opponent.Similarly,one possible goal of gambling (in poker or betting on an outcome with an acquaintance)is to defeat anotherpersonor persons. Second, competitiveness may be associated with consumeractivitiesin which the experiencesare vicariouslyobtained.As noted earlierin this article,Carver(1915) argued that people may use consumptionfor competitivepurposes. Veblen (1899) and Belk (1988) proposed that people may consume vicariously by observing the behavior of others. Based on these ideas and the work of Bandura(1977) on social learningtheory,it was anticipatedthatcompetitiveindividualsmay consumeexperiencesvicariouslyby observinga model competingagainstan opponent.In my investigation,it is proposed that competitivenessis related to the vicarious consumptionof experiencesin two domains.First, it is proposed thata positiverelationwill be foundbetweencompetitivenessandthe enjoymentof watchingsportseventsas a fan. Thus, althoughthe fan does not actuallywin or lose the contest, he or she may experiencevictory or defeat vicariously. Second, it is proposedthat a positive relationwill be found between competitiveness and the tendency to watch the dramagenre of movies. As discussed by Alwitt (2002), inherentin dramasis the notion of a main characterencountering a conflict with the outcome in doubt. Although all conflict does not involve competition,the concept of conflict is inherentin competition. The third context in which competitivenessmay impact consumer behavior is in the conspicuous consumption of productsand services. Thatis, people may purchasesocially visible goods to obtainprivatemeaningsof achievementand to differentiatethemselvesfrom others(Richins, 1994). Two arenaswere selected that representpossible illustrationsof conspicuousconsumption-the purchaseof innovative,new automobilesand the latest electronicequipment.Both automobiles and electronics representmaterialgoods that meet the criteriaas symbolic consumptionproducts.Thatis, they are visible, they show variabilityin ownership,and they are personalizable(Holman, 1981). As an extension of themselves (Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982), these goods could be used to enhancea competitiveperson's self-image by showing that they are betterthan othersthroughthe ownershipof materialgoods. In additionto investigatingtraitcompetitiveness,the present researchalso has implicationsfor understandingthe natureof hierarchicalmodels. Figure 1 shows thatthe variance of competitiveness may be partitionedinto three compo-

ANDCONSUMER COMPETITIVENESS BEHAVIOR 55

ElementalTraits Agreeable

Competitiveness 0 Agreeable

Material

Material

Error__

Arousal

Arousal

Unstable Conscientious -P

Unstable

Desire to Win & Better

Body-Introversion

SurfaceTrait e.g., Sports participation

Conscient.. Others Body needs

Openness of Competitiveness. theVariance Note.Predictors of competitiveness FIGURE1 Partitioning baseduponMowen(2000).

nents: (a) the effects of the elemental traits;(b) errorvariance, includingthe effects of othertraitsthatarenot included in the model; and (c) a desireto win andbe betterthanothers thatis independentof the effects of the elementaltraits.If the variance of competitivenessthat is associated with the elemental traits is responsible for the bivariatecorrelationbetween competitiveness and a surface trait, ratherthan the varianceassociated with the desire to win and defeat others unaccountedfor by the elementaltraits,then addingthe elementaltraitswill eliminatethe relationbetween competitiveness andthe surfacetrait.The implicationis thatrelationsbetween constructs may be inferred when in fact they occur because of the effects of more basic traitsin the hierarchical model. As describedearlier,in the 3M model the elementaltraits include measuresof the big-five traitsas well as measuresof material, body, and arousal needs. The selection of these traitsmay be criticizedbecause there are dozens if not hundreds of other traits that could have been selected. These eight traitswere selected because the 3M model is one of the few approachesto providea theoreticalbasis (i.e., evolutionary psychology principles) for identifying the most basic traitsin a hierarchicalmodel. In each of the four studies, a 3-step process for analyzing the datais employed. First, a confirmatoryfactoranalysis of all of the constructsis performed.Second, for each surface trait/attitudinalconstruct, a full mediation model is run in which the elementaltraitsare connectedto competitiveness, competitivenessis connectedto the surfaceconstruct,andthe surface constructis connected to an outcome variable.The outcome variableis includedin the analysis in orderto demonstratethat the surfaceconstructaccountsfor variancein a relevantconsumerbehavioroutcome.Third,a partialmediation structuralmodel is run in which the elementaltraitsare also connected to the surface construct of interest. A chi-squaredifference test is then run to determinewhether the partialmediationmodel is superiorto the full mediation model. Throughthis process a determinationcan be made of

whethercompetitivenessis predictiveof the surfacetraitafter accountingfor the effects of the elementaltraits.

STUDY 1: COMPETITIVENESS:ITS RELATION TO SPORTS PARTICIPATION, FAN GAMBLING PARTICIPATION, PARTICIPATION, AND AUTO-BUYINGINNOVATIVENESS Study 1 investigatestwo domains in which consumersmay directly compete against others-sports participationand gambling.In addition,contexts in which consumersmay vicariouslycompete (sportsfan participation)and a context in which consumersmay conspicuouslycompete (auto-buying innovativeness) are assessed. Researchershave previously investigated the relation of trait competitiveness with involvement in sports. Shoham and Kahle (1996) found that competitiveness was positively associated with attending sportsevents. In the review of the literatureon gamblingand auto buying, no evidence was found of previousresearchers empiricallyinvestigatingthe role of competitivenessin either gamblingor auto buying. As discussed in the introductionto this article,the goal of my researchis to investigatethe relationbetween competitiveness and selected surfacetraitmeasuresof behaviorthat occurs in contextsin which people may compete directly,vicariously,or throughconspicuous consumption.In this approachthe elementaltraitsareemployedas controlvariables. As a result,no predictionswere madefor the relationsamong the elemental traitsand the surfacetraits.Based on the proposal that each surfacetraitinvolves competing directly,vicariously,or for the purposeof conspicuousconsumption,it is proposed that after accountingfor the effects of the elemental traits, competitivenesswill be predictive of surface traitmeasuresof sportsinterest,fan interest,gamblinginterest, and auto-buyinginnovativeness. In the 3M model, surfacetraitsmeasureenduringtendencies to behave within highly specific contexts. Because of

56

MOWEN

their specificity, they are able to account for high levels of variancein outcome variables.In the presentresearch,outcome measureswere included for each surface trait.It was anticipatedthatthe surfacetraitmeasurewould be predictive of its specific outcome variable, which measured the frequency of engaging in the relevantbehavior.No hypotheses were developedto specify expectedrelationsbetweenthe elementaltraitsandthe outcomevariablesorbetweencompetitiveness and the outcome variables.

Results A confirmatoryfactor analysis was run on the 17 constructs-the 8 elemental traits,competitiveness,sportsparticipation, fan participation,auto innovativeness,gambling participation,and the 4 outcome constructs.The fit indexes were acceptable(X2= 2215.0, df= 1539,p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI= .97, root mean squareerror[RMSEA]= .047). Pathcoefficients for all indicatorswere significant and above .20. Coefficientalphasfor all constructswith threeor more indicatorswere above .80.

Methodology Respondentswere obtained from a consumerpanel run by MarketFacts, Inc. The 4-page surveywas sent to 600 membersof the panel.They were selected so as to matchthe population characteristicsof the United States on age, household income, education, race, gender, and geographic location. Completedsurveys were received from 354 respondents-a 59% response rate. The demographiccharacteristicsof the sample are 48% men, 68.4% married, 83.3% White, 35% have attendedcollege. The age of the respondentsis evenly distributedbetween 25 and 64 years old; 88%of the respondents are in this age range. Seventeen constructswere investigatedin the study.The indicatorsof the eight elementaltraitsandof competitiveness were included.Respondentswere askedhow frequentlythey "felt or acted this way. " Their responseswere measuredon 9-pointratingscales boundedby never and always. The surface-level traitswere measuredon 7-pointLikert-typescales. Threeitems assessed sportsparticipation(e.g., "Participating in sports as a player is fun for me"). Three items were employed to measurefan participation(e.g., "I really enjoy being a spectatorat sportingevents").To measureauto-buying innovativeness,four items were taken from the Goldsmith and Hofacker(1991) scale, which was designed to be a general measure of product specific innovativeness (e.g., "In general,I am among the first in my circle of friendsto buy a new model car when it comes out").Gamblingparticipation was measuredby four items (e.g., "WheneverI have the opportunity,I will make a bet"). Each outcome variablewas measured by a single-item construct. Sports participation was measuredby asking "forall sports, 'X' the box thatindicates how often you participatein matchesor games against others."Seven responses were possible: almost never,once or twice a year, about once every two months,about once a month,two to three times a month,about once a week, more than once a week. Fan participationwas also measuredby a single item, which read:"Forall sports,how often do you attend matches or games as a spectator?" The same response scale as for sports participationwas employed. Gambling frequencywas assessed by asking, "Abouthow many times each year do you gamble in any way?" The same response scale as for sportsparticipationwas employed.Auto-buying frequencywas assessed by a single item, which read:"How many differentcars have you purchasedfor yourself in the last 10 years?"(Respondentswrote in a number.)

Investigating sports participation. In the first analysis, a full mediationmodel was run-elemental traitsto competitiveness,competitivenessto sportsinterest,sportsinterest to sportsparticipation.The fit indexeswere acceptable(%2 = 1387.4, df= 703, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI= .98, RMSEA= .053). The model accounted for 44.8% of the variance in competitiveness.Significantpredictorswere need for arousal (t = 8.24, p < .001), agreeableness(t = -4.26, p < .001), need for body resources(t = 2.43, p < .01), andopennessto experience (t = 2.09, p < .05). The model accountedfor 16.6%of the variancein sportsinterest(t = 7.61, p < .001) and 26.6% of the variancein sportsparticipation(t = 10.69, p < .001). In the next analysis, a partial mediation model was run-elemental traitsto competitivenessandto sportsparticipation, competitivenessto sportsinterest,sportsinterestto sports participation.The fit indexes were acceptable (%2= 1362.7, df= 695, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI= .98, RMSEA= .052). The model accounted for 22.5% of the variance in sportsinterest(t = 4.16, p < .001). Significantpredictorsof sportsinterestwere competitiveness(t = 4.16, p < .001), introversion(t = -3.63, p < .001), and need for body resources (t = 2.85,p < .01). The chi-squaredifferencetest revealedthat adding the paths to predict sports interest significantlyimprovedthe model (X2diff= 24.7, df= 8, p < .001). These results reveal that competitivenessis a significant predictorof sportsinterestwhen the effects of the elemental traitsareaccountedfor in a structuralmodel. In addition,they revealedthatthe surfacetraitmeasureof sportsinterestwas a significant predictorof sports participation.Sports interest was positively related to the frequency of participatingin matches/games. Competitivenesswas positively related to sportsinterest.Body resourceneeds were positively related andintroversionwasnegativelyrelatedto sportsparticipation. Investigating fan participation. In the first analysis, the full mediationmodel was run. The fit indexes were acceptable (z2 = 1357.8, df= 703, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI= .98, RMSEA= .051). Competitivenesswas a significantpredictor of fan interest(t = 3.68, p < .001) and accountedfor 4.3% of its variance.Fan interestwas a significantpredictor of fan participation(t = 11.52), accountingfor 29.9% of its variance. In the next analysis the partialmediationmodel was run, andthe fit indexeswere acceptable(%2= 1347.4, df= 695, p
.20). Thus, the full mediationmodel fits. Investigating gambling participation. The full mediationmodel was run and the fit statisticswere acceptable(%2 = 1551.1, df= 742, p < .001, CFI= .98, TLI= .97, RMSEA= .056). The pathfrom competitivenessto gamblingparticipation was significant (t = 3.68, p < .001) and accountedfor 4.5% of the variance in the construct.The path from gambling participationto gambling frequency was also significant (t = 9.97) and accountedfor 28.3% of its variance. In the next analysis, the partialmediationmodel was run and its fit statistics were also acceptable(X2= 1509.9, df= 734, p < .001, CFI = .97, TLI= .98, RMSEA= .055). The chi-squaredifferencetest was significant(X2diff= 41.2, df= 8, p < .001), which indicatedthat the partialmediationmodel was superior.In this model the significantpredictorsof gambling interestwere need for arousal(t = 3.12, p < .001), need for materialresources (t = 2.83, p < .01), need for body resources (t = -2.50, p < .05), agreeableness(t = 1.87, p < .07), andconscientiousness(t = -1.85, p < .07). Thus the expected relationbetween competitivenessand gamblinginterestwas not obtained(t = .81, p > .50). Investigating auto-buying innovativeness. The full mediationmodel was runandthe fit indexes were acceptable (X2= 1497.3, df= 742, p < .001, CFI= .98, TLI= .98, RMSEA = .054).1 The model accountedfor 6.5% of the variancein auto-buyinginnovativenessand 14% of the variancein the numberof autospurchasedin the last 10 years.The pathfrom competitivenessto auto-buyinginnovativenesswas significant (t = 4.29, p < .001), and the path from auto-buying innovativenessto numberof autospurchasedwas also significant (t = 6.53, p < .001). In the next analysis, the partialmediationmodel was run andthe fit indexes were acceptable(X2= 1449.7, df= 734, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI= .98, RMSEA= .053). The chi-square differencetest was significant,revealingthatthe partialmediation model was superior(X2diff= 47.6, df = 8, p < .001). The model accountedfor 21.9% of the variancein auto-buying innovativeness.Significantpredictorswere need for materialresources(t = 5.01, p < .001), need for arousal(t = 1.91, p < .06), andopennessto experience(t = 1.73,p < .08). When the effects of the elemental traits are statisticallyaccounted for, the relation between competitiveness and auto-buying innovativenesswas eliminated(t = 0.17, p > .70). The results revealedthat competitivenessdid not predict either gambling interest or auto-purchasinginnovativeness when the elemental traits were included in the model. An 1TheArkansaspanel study was performedearly in the developmentof the elementaltraits.At this point in time, agreeablenessand materialneeds had threeratherthanfour indicators.As a result,the degrees of freedomfor these analyses do not match those of the previous studies.

57

analysisindicatedthe bivariatecorrelationbetween competitiveness and the need for arousalto be r = .56. One possible explanationof the results is that the need for arousalis the compoundtrait and that it mediatedthe effects of competitiveness. To test for whether the need for arousal acts as though it mediates the effects of competitiveness,two additional structuralmodels were runin which the pathsfrom the need for arousal to gambling interest and auto-buying innovativenesswere set to zero. In the first model, the path from competitivenessto gamblinginterestwas significant(t = 2.70, p < .01). The chi-square difference between this model andthe model with the pathfrom arousalto gambling interestfreedrevealeda significanteffect (X2diff= 9.8, df= 1, p < .001). In the second analysisthe same procedurewas performed on auto-buyinginnovativeness.When the path from arousal to auto-buyinginnovativenesswas set to zero, the path from competitiveness to auto-buying innovativeness was not significant(t = 1.25, p > .20). Anotheranalysis was run in which the path from materialneeds to auto-buying innovativenesswas set to zero. Again, the pathfromcompetitiveness to auto-buyinginnovativenesswas not significant(t = .65, p > .50). Finally,the pathsof both the need for arousal and the need for materialresourceswere set to zero. In this case, the path from competitiveness to auto-buying innovativenesswas significant(t = 3.09, p < .001). These results are consistent with the need for arousalmediatingthe effects of competitivenesson gambling behavior.They are consistentwith the need for arousalandthe need for material resources mediating the effects of competitiveness on auto-buyinginnovativeness. For the outcome variables of sports interest and fan interest, the paths from competitivenessto sportsinterest and fan interest were set to zero in two separateanalyses. For sports interest, the results revealed that the path from arousalto sportsinterestwas significant(t = 4.23, p < .001) when the path from competitivenessto sports interest was set to zero. When the path from competitivenessto sports interest is freed, the effect is decreased (t = 1.69, p < .10). The chi-square difference test reveals that the model with competitiveness included is significantly better (X2diff = 17.0, df = 1, p < .001). A similar set of analyses was run on fan interest.When the path from competitivenessto fan interest was set to zero, the path from arousalto fan interest was significant (t = 2.47, p < .05). Since the full mediation has alreadybeen shown to be superiorto the partialmediation model, these results supportthe proposalthat competitiveness mediatesthe effects of arousal(and the othertraits) on fan interest. In sum, using the criteria identified by Baron and Kenny (1986), competitivenessmediates the effects of the need for arousal on sports interest and on fan interest. Discussion The results providedgood supportfor the expected relation between the surfacetraitsandthe outcomevariables.Thus, it

58

MOWEN

was foundthatsportsinterestpredictsthe frequencyof direct participationin sportsevents. Similarly,for the measuresof fan interest, gambling interest, and automobile-buying innovativeness,the surface traitspredictedmeasures of the frequencyof watchingsportsevents,of gambling,andof purchasing automobiles. In contrast,there was mixed supportfor the predictions concerningthe relationbetweencompetitivenessandthe surface traits.As predicted,after accountingfor the effects of the elementaltraits,competitivenesswas positivelyrelatedto sportsinterestand fan interest.A differentpatternwas found for gambling participationand auto-buyinginnovativeness. Thatis, the full mediationmodels revealedthatcompetitiveness was positively associatedwith both gamblingparticipation and auto-buyinginnovativeness.In contrast,the partial mediationmodels revealedno relationbetween competitiveness and the outcome variables. A series of additionalanalyses were conductedto investigate the possible moderatingvariablesof age, income, and genderon auto-buyinginnovativenessand gamblingparticipation. The same patternof results (arousalacts as thoughit mediatescompetitiveness)occurredfor both older andyounger consumersand for higher and lower income consumers. When the gender of the respondentswas investigated,the previousresultswere replicatedfor men. When a partialmediation model was run for women, however, the effects for competitivenessremained(arousal,t = 2.84, p < .01; competitiveness, t = 2.17,p < .05). Thus, women act as thoughcompetitiveness influences the purchaseof innovativeautos. In contrast, for men the effects of competitiveness are accountedfor by the need for arousal.Futureresearch,perhaps throughqualitativemethods,is requiredto providean explanationfor why men andwomenmay differas to theirmotives for auto-buyinginnovativeness.For gambling participation, therewas no evidence of any moderationeffects occurring. I propose that it is not parsimoniousto identify competitiveness as mediating the effects of arousal in two cases (sports interest and fan interest), but being mediated by arousalin two other cases (gamblinginterestand auto-buying innovativeness).It is proposedthata more parsimonious explanationis thatcompetitivenessis a compound-leveltrait that fully mediates the effects of arousalon some variables (e.g., sportsinterest).In contrast,for othersurfacetraits(e.g., gambling) the effects of competitivenessare accountedfor by its relationwith the elementaltraitof need for arousal.

interestin Study 1 were supportiveof the role of competitiveness in situationsinvolving the vicarious experience of winning and losing. In contrast, for the variable of auto-buyinginnovativeness,the role of competitivenessin conspicuous consumption was not supportedin Study 1. The purpose of Study 2 is to explore the role of competitiveness for another class of products that may be purchased as a result of conspicuous consumption motives-electronic equipment. It was anticipatedthat competitiveness is positively associated with innovativenessin the purchase of electronic products. It was also expected that innovativeness in the purchase of electronic products is predictive of the ownership of innovative electronic goods. Method

STUDY 2: COMPETITIVENESSAND ELECTRONICINNOVATIVENESS

Respondentswere members of a household researchpanel run by a university.Data were collected in two phases. Six hundredmembersof the panel received a "ConsumerMotivation" questionnaire.2This questionnaire assessed the eight elemental traitsand competitiveness.About 3 months later, a second wave of questionnaireswas sent to the same set of respondents.In this survey a measurewas taken of a surfacetrait measureof innovativenessfor electronic products based on work by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991). This scale differs from the general measure of consumer innovativenessdeveloped by Raju (1980) because it measures innovativeness for specific product categories. Finally, a measure of the knowledge and purchaseof electronic products was developed. On 7-point Likert-type scales, respondentswere asked to indicate whetherthey had purchasedor were strongly consideringpurchasingthe following electronicproducts:digital cameras,laptop computers, electronic notebooks, DVDs, and surround-soundstereo systems. Responses were summedto obtain an index of innovativebehaviorin the purchaseof electronicproducts. Individuals in the panel had an option as to which of several surveysto complete. As a result, not all respondents answeredeach questionnaire.In the first sample, responses were obtained from 311 individuals. In the second wave, responses were obtained from 295 individuals. The final wave consisted of 226 respondents who completed both questionnairesand who answered sufficient questions for their surveys to be usable. The average age of the respondents was 55.1 years, and 74% of the respondents were married.The annual average income range of the respondents was $40,000-$50,000.

Study 1 found mixed evidence for the role of competitiveness in situations involving direct participationin winning and losing. Results for sports interest supportedthe proposition. In contrast,the results for gamblinginterestwere inconsistent with the proposal.In addition,the results for fan

2Thedatafromthe surveywere obtainedfromMowen (2000). He did not reportany analysesin which competitivenesswas employedas a predictorof electronic-buyinginnovativeness.In addition,he did not discuss the role of competitivenessin conspicuousconsumptionin the book.

COMPETITIVENESSAND CONSUMERBEHAVIOR

Results and Discussion In the firstanalysis,a confirmatoryfactoranalysiswas runon the 11 constructs-the 8 elemental traits, competitiveness, electronic-buying innovativeness, and the measure of the purchaseof electronicproducts.The fit indexes were acceptable (X2= 1115.7, df= 686, p < .001, CFI= .91, TLI= .90, RMSEA= .053). Coefficient alphas for all constructswere above .80. In the next analysis,the full mediationmodel was runand the fit indexeswere acceptable(X2= 1130.7, df= 703,p < .001, CFI= .91, TLI=.91, RMSEA= .052). Themodelaccountedfor 6.9%of thevariancein electronicinnovativenessand42.6%of the variancein the measureof ownershipof innovativeelectronic devices. The path from competitivenessto electronic innovativenesswas significant(t = 3.64,p < .001), andthepath from electronicinnovativenessto electronic-buyingbehavior was also significant(t = 10.99, p < .001). In the next analysis, the partialmediationmodel was run andthe fit indexeswere acceptable(%2= 1126.5, df= 695, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .053). The chi-square

difference test was not significant,revealingthat the partial mediation model was not superior (X2diff = 4.2, df = 8, p > .20). The model accountedfor 9.2% of the variancein electronic innovativeness.The only significantpredictorof electronicinnovativenesswas competitiveness(t= 1.96,p < .05). The mediating role of competitivenesswas assessed by runninganotherpartialmediation model in which the path from competitiveness to electronic innovativeness was set to zero. The chi-square difference test was significant, re= 3.80, df = vealing that the first model was superior(X2diff 1, p < .06). The only significant predictor of electronic innovativeness in the second model was the need for arousal(t = 2.47, p < .02). Based on the Baron and Kenney (1986) criteria, these results are consistent with competitiveness mediating the effects of the need for arousal on electronic innovativeness. The results reveal that after accountingfor the effects of the elemental traits, competitiveness is associated with innovativenessin the purchaseof electronicproducts.In addition, the results revealed that electronic product innovativenessis positively associatedwith the ownershipof innovativeelectronicproducts.In sum, the resultsareconsistent with the propositionthatcompetitivenessinfluences the conspicuousconsumptionof some classes of goods.

STUDY 3: MOVIEPREFERENCE STUDY It is proposedthattraitcompetitivenessinfluences the selection of activitiesthatinvolve the vicariousexperienceof winning and losing. This proposalwas supportedin Study 1 by findingthatcompetitivenesspredictsinterestin being a spectatorat sportingevents. Anothersituationin which competition may be experienced vicariously is in watching

59

drama-suspensemovies. Thatis, in this genre of movies one finds a characterwith whom the audiencecan empathizeand who seeks to overcome an adversary.Based on the work of Bandura(1977), it is proposedthatcompetitivenessis a motive to engage in activitiesin which an observercan fulfill his or her competitivenessneeds by experiencingthe emotions engenderedby a hero defeatingan adversary.Thusit is anticipatedthat competitivenesswill be a significantpredictorof preferencesfor dramasafteraccountingfor the effects of the elementaltraitsin a partialmediationmodel. As part of the investigation,a measure of liking for romance movies was also included in the study.It was anticipated that competitiveness would not be predictive of this movie genre. Finally, a measure of liking for the movie Titanic was also included. It was anticipatedthat preferences for romance movies would be predictive of this outcome variable, whereas the measure of preferences for dramas would not be associatedwith liking for Titanic. Method As an in-class exercise, 151 studentsenrolledin introductory marketingclasses at a largemidwesternuniversitycompleted a 5-page survey. In addition to measuring competitiveness and the elementaland compoundtraits,the surveycontained measures of preferencesfor movie genres. Preferencesfor drama-suspense movies were assessed by the following statement:"Circlethe numberthatbest representsyour personal evaluationof drama-suspensemovies such as The Client, Apollo 13, Schindler'sList, Saving Private Ryan, etc." Respondentswere also askedto "provideyourpersonalevaluationof romancemovies such as Sleepless in Seattle, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, The English Patient, etc." An outcome variablewas createdby asking respondentsto give their reactions to the movie Titanic. Evaluationswere obtainedon three7-point semanticdifferentialscales anchored by bad-good, unfavorable-favorable,and negative opinion-positive opinion. Coefficient alphas for the scales were above .90. Results and Discussion In the firstanalysis,a confirmatoryfactoranalysiswas runon the 12 constructs-the 8 elemental traits, competitiveness, preferencefor dramas,preferencefor romancemovies, and liking for the movie Titanic.The fit indexes were acceptable (X2= 1377.3, df= 836,p < .001, CFI= .97, TLI= .97, RMSEA = .065). Coefficient alphasfor all constructswere above 80. In the next analysis, the dramamovie genre was investigated.Whenthe full mediationmodel was run,the fit indexes wereacceptable(2 = 1198.2,df= 741,p .701). In the next analysis, a partialmediation model was run in which paths from the elemental traits to preferencesfor dramaswere added. The fit indexes were acceptable (z2 = 1190.3, df= 733, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI= .97, RMSEA= .064). The chi-square difference test was not significant, which supportsthe full mediationmodel based on the parsimony criterion(Z2diff = 7.9, df = 8, p > .10). The model accounted for 10% of the variancein preferencesfor dramas. The only significant predictor of preferences for dramas was competitiveness(t = 2.02, p < .05). The elemental trait of agreeableness approached significance (t = 1.76, p < .10). To test for mediation, the path from competitivenessto preferencesfor dramaswas set to zero and the analysis was rerun(X2 = 1194.2, df= 734, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI= .97, RMSEA= .064). Comparingthis model to the partialmediation model revealed that the partialmediation model was superior (X2diff = 3.9, df = 1, p > .05). The only elemental trait to approach significance in the prediction of preferences for dramas was the need for arousal (t = 1.64, p < .11). These results indicate that competitiveness mediated the possible relationbetween the need for arousaland preferences for dramas. The analyses were next run on preferencesfor romance movies. The fit indexes for the full mediation model were acceptable(%2= 1214.3, df= 741, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA= .065). The model accountedfor .002% of the variancein romancemovie preferencesand .31% of the variancein the measureof liking for Titanic.The path from competitivenessto preferencesfor romancemovies was not significant (t = -0.56, p > .50), but the path from preferences for romance movies to liking for Titanicwas significant (t = 7.74, p < .001). In the next analysis, a partialmediation model was run in which paths were also run from the elemental traits to preferences for romance movies. The fit indexes were acceptable (X2= 1190.3, df= 733, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI= .97, RMSEA= .064). The chi-squaredifferencetest was significant, revealing that the partialmediationmodel was superior (X2diff = 24.0, df = 8, p < .01). The model accounted for 16.4% of the variancein preferencesfor romancemovies. The significant predictorsof preferences for romance movies were conscientiousness(t = 2.48, p < .05) and introversion (t = -1.87, p < .07). The resultsrevealedthatcompetitivenesspredictspreferences for the genre of drama-suspense movies after accountingfor the effects of the elementaltraits.These results are consistent with the proposal that trait competitiveness influences consumer activities and preferencesthat involve the vicarious experience of winning and defeating others. In addition,the results supportthe nomological validity of the competitivenessconstruct.Thatis, it did supportthe hypothesized relation between competitiveness and preferences for dramas;and, as expected, it was unrelatedto pref-

erences for romancemovies-an attitudenot expected to be associated with winning and defeating others.

GENERAL DISCUSSION The researchinvestigatedthe propositionthat traitcompetitiveness influences consumers in three domains: (a) situations in which consumersdirectlycompete againstan opponent in a contest (sportsinterestandgambling),(b) situations in which winning and losing can be experiencedvicariously (fan interestand dramamovie interest),and (c) situationsin which people consume for the purposeof conspicuousconsumption (auto-buyinginnovativenessand electronic-product buying innovativeness).The results fully supportedthe proposalfor vicariouscompetitiveprocesses in the domains of watchingsportsas a fan and watchingdrama-basedmovies. In the realm of direct competition,the results supported the propositionfor sportsparticipationbut not for gambling participation.Similarly, in the realm of conspicuous consumption,the results supportedthe propositionfor the purchase of innovativeelectronicproductsbutnot for innovative auto purchases. In each of the consumerbehaviordomains,two structural models were compared.In the full mediationmodel, paths were not connected from the elemental traitsto the surface trait.In contrast,the pathswere includedin the partialmediation model. In the full mediationmodel, competitivenesswas positively associated with both gambling participationand innovativeauto purchases.In contrast,in the partialmediation model the pathfrom competitivenessto these constructs became nonsignificant. Mediation tests revealed that the need for arousal acted as though it mediatedthe effects of competitivenesson these surfacetraits.Mowen (2000), however,obtainedstrongevidencethatcompetitivenessresidesat the compoundlevel andthatarousalis one of its antecedents. Furthermore,the work of Zuckerman(1979) on sensation seeking andthe need for arousalrevealedthatit has a genetic component,which places the constructat the elementaltrait level. Thus the proposalthatthe need for arousal,ratherthan competitiveness, resides at the compound level cannot be supported. How can competitivenessin some cases appearto be a compoundtraitandin othersappearto be an elementaltrait? It is proposedthatFigure 1 providesan explanation.Thatis, the varianceof competitivenesscan be partitionedinto components that result from measurementerror,from the elementaltraits,andfromthe desireto win andbetterothers.For both gamblingparticipationandauto-buyinginnovativeness, the results indicate that the need for arousalis an important trait antecedent. In addition, we know from the work of Mowen (2000) that the need for arousalis an antecedentof competitiveness.The structuralmodeling suggests thatcompetitivenesswas associatedwith gamblingparticipationand auto-buyinginnovativenessin the full mediationmodel because competitiveness results in part from the need for

COMPETITIVENESSAND CONSUMERBEHAVIOR

arousal.As a result,in the partialmediationmodel, which includeda pathfromthe need for arousalto the surfacetrait,the relationbetween competitivenessandthese surfacetraitsdisappears.These results suggest that gambling participation and auto-buyinginnovativenessresult from arousalmotives ratherthan from the desire to win and better others. (Althoughadditionalanalyses suggest thatthe desire to win and betterothersmay be a motive for women to purchaseinnovative automobiles.)The results also suggest the approachadvocated by Baron and Kenny (1986) for identifying mediation must be employed within the context of a theoretical model that a priori specifies the causal relations among the variables.That is, without the a priorimodel misleading interpretationsof results may occur. Limitations and Future Research Futureresearchshould replicatethe findings on the relation betweencompetitivenessandthe consumerbehaviorsinvestigatedin thecurrentresearch.Inparticular,therelationof competitivenesswith indicatorsof conspicuousconsumptionbeyond auto-buying innovativeness and the purchase of electronicproductsshouldbe assessed. In addition,the possibility thatconspicuousconsumptionmay operateat the brand level ratherthanthe productcategorylevel shouldbe investigated. For example, innovativeautos may be purchasedfor a variety of motives, such as ecology (e.g., the fuel-efficient Toyota Prius) or conspicuous consumption (e.g., a Rolls Royce). Similarly,the relationbetween competitivenessand gambling may also depend on the type of gambling investigated. Some types of gamblinginvolve directcompetitionin which one personcompetes againstan identifiableopponent (e.g., poker).Othertypes of gamblingdo notinvolveanidentifiableopponent(e.g., lotteries).If thisanalysisis correct,competitivenessshouldbe relatedto participationin pokerbutnot in lotterieswhentheneedforarousalis includedin themodel. The reviewersof the manuscriptidentifieda numberof issues for additionalempiricalandtheoreticalwork.Forexample, the questionwas raisedas to whethergamblingandplaying sports representconsumerbehaviors?Although neither of these activities involves the acquisitionof goods, both involve the consumption of experiences and performances (Deighton, 1992) and include the use of consumergoods as props.As a result,I view these domainsas worthyof studyby consumerresearchers. Anotherarenaof concerninvolves the following question. Giventhattherearea myriadof consumerbehaviorsto investigate,why choose this particularset?The answeris based on the proposal that competitiveness influences consumers in the three contexts of direct competition,vicarious competition, and conspicuous consumption (which may also be called competitiveconsumption.The set of consumer activates was selected as a result of the desire to investigatetwo behaviors representativeof each domain. Certainly additional behaviorsmay be investigatedwithin each of the consumerarenas.Forexample,consumersmay directlycompete

61

when playingboardgames (chess) or cardgames (bridge).A limitationof the presentresearchis that the three consumer competitivedomainswere proposeda priori.A directionfor futureresearchis to empiricallydevelop a typology of situations in which consumers compete. In addition, research should be undertakento identify consumer activities with which competitiveness is negatively related. That is, what arenasare competitiveindividualslikely to avoid? Another arena for future research concerns the identification of the elemental traits.The results of the presentresearch suggest that when identifying the trait precursorsof consumer behaviors, it is importantto control for the effects of more basic traits. It is certainly an open question, however,as to whetherthe eight traitsidentifiedby Mowen (2000) should be accepted. There is good evidence that the five-factortraitsand the need for arousalhave a genetic basis (Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996; Zuckerman, 1995). The proposalthat the need for materialand body resources representbasic traits is more controversial.Mowen (2000) proposed that fundamental needs to collect material resources (tools, shelter,and weapons) and to protect and enhance the body (grooming and beautification)were necessary for the survival of the species. Studies using twins should be performedto investigatethe possible genetic basis for material and body needs. In sum, as proposed by Block (1995), researchersshould continue to work to identify the most basic dimensions of personality. Anotherarenafor futureresearchinvolves the use of experiments.Forexample,one can varythe type of productand ask respondentsto provide the likelihood of their choosing the option. It would be hypothesized that competitiveness should moderatethe effects, dependingon the type of product. Anotherpossibility is to vary the promotionaltheme for a product.Respondentshigher in competitivenesswould be expectedto respondmorefavorablyto directcompetitive,vicarious competitive, and conspicuous consumptionthemes. This line of researchwould also have the advantageof eliminatingmethodsvarianceas an explanationfor the results. In sum, the researchprovidedgood evidence thatthe trait of competitivenessinfluences consumersin domainsinvolving directcompetition,vicariouslyexperiencedcompetition, and conspicuous consumption. Additional theoretical and empiricalwork is required,however,to furtherexplicate the domainsin which competitivenessinfluencesconsumersand the potentialnegativeandpositive social implicationsof such behavior.

REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1961). Patternand growth in personality.New York:Holt, Rinehart& Winston. Alwitt, L. F. (2002). Suspense and advertisingresponses. Journal of ConsumerPsychology,12, 35-49. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

62

MOWEN

variabledisBaron,R. M., & Kenny,D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator tinctionin social psychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategic,andstatistical considerations.Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Barry,D. (1998, December6). Dave Barry.TribuneMedia Services, p. D4. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions andthe extendedself. Journalof Consumer Research,15, 139-168. Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer,R. N. (1982). Developmentalrecognition of consumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 4-17. Block, J. (1995). A contrarianview of the five-factorapproachto personality description.Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, Jr.,J. W. (1998, October).Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizationalcompetition on salesperson goal setting and performance.Journal of Marketing, 62, 88-98. Brown, S. P., & Peterson,R. A. (1994, April). The effects of effort on sales performanceandjob satisfaction.Journalof Marketing,58, 70-80. Buss, A. H. (1988). Personality:Evolutionaryheritage and humandistinctiveness. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Carver,C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990, January).Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-processview. Psychological Review, 97, 19-35. Carver,T. N. (1915). Essays in socialjustice. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Deighton, John (1992). The consumptionof performance.Journal of ConsumerResearch,19, 362-372. Furham, A., Kirkcaldy,B. D., & Lynn,R. (1996). Attitudinalcorrelatesof nationalwealth. Personalityand IndividualDifferences,21, 345-353. Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness.Journalof Academyof MarketingScience, 19, 209-221. Helmreich,R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1978). The work and family orientation questionnaire:An objectiveinstrumentto assess componentsof achievement motivationand attitudestowardfamily and career.JSASCatalog of Selected Documentsin Psychology,8, 35. Holman, R. H. (1981). Productas communication:A fresh appraisalof a venerabletopic. In B. Enis & K. J. Roering (Eds.), Review of Marketing (pp. 106-119). Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation. Jang, K. L, Livesley, W. J., & Vernon,P. A. (1996). Heritabilityof the big five personalitydimensionsandtheirfacets:A twin study.Journalof Personality,64, 577-592. Joachimsthaler,E. A., & Lastovicka,J. L. (1984). Optimalstimulation-level research.Journalof ConsumerResearch,20, 376-392. LastovickaJ. L. (1982). On the validationof lifestyle traits:A review andillustration.Journal of MarketingResearch,19, 126-138.

Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). A revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology,46, 1349-1364. Lichtenstein,D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990, July). Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition-transactionutility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54, 54-67. Moorman,C., & Matulich, E. (1993). A model of consumers'preventive healthbehaviors:The role of healthmotivationandhealthability.Journal of ConsumerResearch,20, 208-228. Mowen, J. C. (2000). The3M model of motivationand personality:Theory and empirical application to consumerbehavior Boston: Kluwer Academic. Mowen, J. C., & Spears,N. (1999). Compulsivebuying among college students:A hierarchicalmodel approach.Journalof ConsumerPsychology, 8, 407-430. Paunonen,S. V. (1998). Hierarchicalorganizationof personalityandprediction of behavior.Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology,74, 538-556. Puri, R. (1996). Measuring and modifying consumer impulsiveness: A cost-benefitaccessibilityframework.Journalof ConsumerPsychology,5, 87-113. Raju,P. S. (1980). Optimumstimulationlevel: Its relationshipto personality, demographics,andexploratorybehavior.Journalof ConsumerResearch, 7, 272-282. Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuingthings:The public and privatemeaningsof possessions. Journalof ConsumerResearch,21, 504-521. Rosenthal,R. (1991). Meta-analyticproceduresfor social research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers:A brief version of Goldberg'sunipolar big-five markers.Journalof PersonalityAssessment,63, 506-516. Shoham,A., & Kahle,L. R. (1996). Spectators,viewers,readers:Communication and consumption communities in sport marketing.Sport Marketing Quarterly,5(1), 11-19. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich,R. L. (1983). Achievement-relatedmotives and behavior.In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievementand achievementmotives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 7-74). San Francisco: Freeman. Terpstra,D. E., Rozell, E. J., & Robinson, R. K. (1994). The influence of personalityand demographicvariableson ethical decisions relatedto insider trading.Journalof Psychology,127, 375-389. Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York:ModernLibrary. Zuckerman,M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimumlevel of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Zuckerman,M. (1995). Good and bad humors:Biochemical bases of personality and its disorders.Psychological Science, 6, 325-332.

APPENDIX The Scales Employed in the Research Compound Traits Competitivenessa Enjoy competitionmore than others Feel thatit is importantto outperformothers Enjoy testing my abilities againstothers Feel thatwinning is extremelyimportant Elemental Traits Introversionb Feel bashfulmore thanothers Introverted Shy Quiet when with people

(continued)

APPENDIX(Continued) Conscientiousnessc Precise Efficient Organized Orderly Openness to Experienced Frequentlyfeel highly creative Imaginative Find novel solutions More originalthanothers Agreeablenesse Tenderheartedwith others Agreeable with others Kind to others Softhearted Emotional Instabilitya Moody more than others Temperamental Emotionsgo way up and down Touchy Need for Material Resourcesc Enjoy buying expensive things Like to own nice things more than most people Acquiringvaluablethings is importantto me Enjoy owning luxuriousthings Need for Arousalb Drawnto experienceswith an element of danger Seek an adrenalinerush Actively seek out new experiences Enjoy takingmore risks than others Need for Body Resourcesc Focus on my body and how it feels Devote time each day to improvingmy body Feel that makingmy body look good is important Workhardto keep my body healthy Surface Traits Sports Interestf Participatingas a player in sportsis fun for me. Playing sportsis extremelyappealingto me. Playing sportsis really exciting for me. Fan Interestg Watchingsportsas a fan is fun for me. Being a sportsfan tells othersmuch aboutme. I really enjoy being a spectatorat sportingevents. Auto-Buying Innovativenessh In general,I am among the first in my groupof friendsto buy a new model car when it comes out. Comparedto my friends,I have owned a lot of differentcars. If I heardabout a new model car in showrooms,I would be interestedenough to go look at it. I like owning a car that I can show off to others. Gambling Interesti I really enjoy gamblingfor money. WheneverI have the opportunity,I will make a bet. I frequentlymake wagers with others. I am skilled in the artof gambling. Electronic Product Purchase Innovativenessb In general,I am among the first in my circle of friendsto buy a new electronicdevice when it appears. If I heardthat a new electronic device was availablein the store,I would be interestedenough to go see it. Comparedto my friends,I own a lot of electronic devices. I buy new electronicproductsbefore most othersdo. Note. The alphasfor the competitivenessand the elementaltraitsrepresentthe averageof the coefficient alphasacross the three studies. aa = .89. ba = .88. C = .87. d = .86. e( = .85. f = .96. ga = .92. h = .77. i = .88.

63