This document describes the development of new measurement scales for opinion leaders and opinion seekers. Existing scales lacked validity and reliability. Through 5 studies, the authors developed 6-item scales for both opinion leadership and opinion seeking using student samples and various product categories. The new scales demonstrate high reliability, normal distributions, unidimensionality, and validity when compared to related constructs. While student samples limit generalizability, the scales capture important consumer behavior patterns. Further research can test the scales with different populations and products. Marketers can use the scales to identify segments and test new product promotions.

1. OPINION LEADERS
AND OPINION
SEEKERS
TWO NEW MEASUREMENT SCALES
Krishna Teja – FPM 1706

2. Introduction
 Customers influence other customers in several ways:
 Role models - inspire imitation among observers
 Spread information – Word of Mouth
 Verbal Directions for Search, purchase and Use.
 Interpersonal sources are more trustworthy than formal
market-dominated sources as they reduce risk.
 This influence is especially significant for diffusion of
innovation, consumer purchase of all types of services and
is important for successful marketing strategies.

3. Layout of Paper
Conceptual
Definitions
of
Constructs
1
Critique of
Existing
Operational
Definitions
2
Overview
of five
studies
3
Limitations
and
Implications
4

4. Construct Definitions
Opinion Leaders:
Individuals who exert an unequal amount of influence
on the decision of others (Rogers and Cartano)
Opinion Seekers:
The consumers who are at the end of two-step
influence flow and influenced by opinion leaders (co-
phenomenon)
The phenomenon (opinion leading and opinion seeking)
are domain specific and not global patterns of behavior

5. Critique of Existing Opinion Leadership Scales
 The scale for measuring operational leadership was
developed by Rogers and Cartano.
 It was modified by king and Summers(1970), Childers(1986)
and Flynn(1944)
 Scales developed without benefits of psychometric
procedures.
 The scale is not unidimensional.
 The scale lacks content and face validity.

6. Critique of Existing Opinion Seeking Scale
 Measured on Ad-Hoc Basis
 Reynolds and Darden (1971) devised a three item scale from items developed by
Wells and Tigert (1971) to measure global opinion seeking
 Moschis(1976) measured opinion seeking by including statement “Friends opinion of
various brand”
 Schiffman(1975) used a single item asking whether respondents sought advice from
friends or neighbors prior to purchase of audio equipment.
 Studies on information search asked consumers to recall frequency of discussion
related to product purchase to measure opinion seeking.
 The ad-hoc measure fail to distinguish between true information seeking and simple
product-related social communication, have low reliability and subject to vagaries of
human memory.

7. Scale Development
 First step is generation of pool of items from which final scales could
be derived.
 Used the blueprint described by Churchill(1979), Spector(1992), and
Rogers and Cartano(1962).
 Review of Literature gave list of 13 opinion leadership and 8 opinion
seeking items
 List revisited for content validity by developers and face validity by 6
doctoral students which reduced the opinion leadership items list to
11.
 Used five studies to increase the internal consistency, maximize the
reliability and demonstrate the internal validity of scale.
 The study is an incremental process described by Nunnally(1978) and
Churchill(1979) and Spector(1992).

8. Opinion Leadership and Opinion Seeking scale
(7 point Likert Scale)

9. Study One
 The test used 19 items, a sample of 224 basic marketing class
students and product category of rock music.
 The questionnaire also contained 3 demographic questions, 4
product related behavior measures and 3-item scale designed to
measure perceived knowledge of product field and hallmark of
opinion leadership.
 In the Opinion Leadership scale five items were removed that
have low alpha value and the resulting scale(6 items – 4
positively and 2 negatively worded) has an alpha value of 0.86.
 The same procedure was adopted for Opinion Seeking scale and
the resulting scale(6 items – 3 positively and 3 negatively
worded) has an alpha value of 0.87.

10. Study Two
 Designed to refine scale by examining dimensionality, internal
consistency and criterion validity.
 The same product category was used and the sample consisted
of 263 students.
 The summated test scores was found to be normally distributed.
 When the opinion seeking item was in first position its
performance was affected because the respondents were
confused.
 A high correlation between positively worded subscales and
negatively worded subscales indicated that there was no
response bias
 The findings also indicated that scales are unidimensional.

11. Study Three
 The respondents were 391 undergraduate students and the
product category was Fashionable clothing.
 The scale was adjusted and new constructs based on previous
study were added to evaluate nomological and criterion validity.
 The scales were close to normal distribution however the
violation was not extreme
 The alpha values, EFA and CFA results were similar to previous
results.
 The research finding and theory has pointed that enduring
involvement with product category plays an important role in
consumer behavior under study.

12. Study Four
 The study was designed to test psychometric performance of
scales using adult sample of 99 women on
green/environmentally-friendly product category.
 The questionnaire also contained Roper Green Scale that
measures propensity to behave in environmental friendly manner
 The results indicated normal distribution, unidimensional and
consistent.
 The first opinion seeking item was weak in the administration
similar to findings of study two.
 The opinion seeking items were split between two factors. The
split was not between positive and negative items and hence
suggest response artifact.

13. Study Five
 The final study assessed the test-retest reliability.
 The product topic was Rock Music and sample consisted of 162
upper division marketing class students
 A second questionnaire were administered 4 weeks apart and
was completed by 127 students.
 The second questionnaire included perceived knowledge items
and consumption behavior questions as a test for convergent
validity.
 The results indicated normal distribution, clear two factor
solution with simple structure, high internal consistency, high
convergent validity and reliability

14. Summary
 The scales developed are easily administered and
summaries patterns of behavior for specific product fields.
 The domain specific scales are adaptable to a variety of
fields
 The scales possess high internal consistency, test-retest
reliability, yielded normally distributed scores and free from
response bias
 The scale is highly correlated with theoretically related
constructs and predicted correlations with criterion
variables.
 The scale is shorted than older one, has convergent and
construct validity and is unidimensional measure.

15. Limitations
 Students are convenient subjects but do not represent the
general population. One adult sample and sample of
women are also restricted.
 The results are not used for making estimates of
characteristics of opinion leaders or opinion seekers or for
theory development so it is an acceptable sample
 When the opinion seeking item was the first item in the form
problem arose which caused the factor to split. This is
possible subject for future research.

16. Implications
 To explore weaknesses and applicability of scale, further studies
can test the scale with different samples of respondents and
different product topics.
 It can be used to identify market segments consisting of these
two types of consumers and formulate effective marketing
strategies.
 Opinions leaders can be identified and used to evaluate product
concepts prior to subsequent product development.
 New product promotions can be evaluated using groups of
opinion leaders and opinion seekers
 The scale can be easily modified for product under investigation
and administered by phone, mail or face-to-face interviews.

17. THANK YOU
.