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 <
COMPETITIVENESSAND CONSUMERBEHAVIOR
.001, CFI = .98, TLI= .98, RMSEA= .052). The chi-square
differencetest revealedthataddingthe pathsto predictfan interestdid not significantlyimprovethe model (X2diff= 9.9, df
= 8, 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 <.001, CFI= .98, TLI
= .97, RMSEA= .064). The model accountedfor 4% of the
variancein preferencefor dramasand.001%of thevariancein
the measure of liking for the movie Titanic.The path from
competitivenessto preferencesfor dramaswas significant(t =
60
MOWEN
3.31, p < .05), andthe pathfrompreferencesfor dramasto liking for Titanicwas not significant(t = 0.33, 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