Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Dr Stephen Dann
Abstract
Normative outcomes represent the degree to which an individual seeks the approval of
rather than social level pressures. The paper outlines the development of a measure of
Introduction
environments. Students of various ages, races, nationality and work experiences are
artificial group structures, students are required to interact with each other and a tutor
who is a clearly identified opinion leader, and are frequently called upon to engaging
1986). In effect, these people are placed into artificial social group structures for one
to two hours a week, for up to 14 weeks, and called upon to perform a series of task
for rewards, where the tasks public displays of opinions. It is in this context that
marketing's understand of consumer behaviour, and the influence of peer and referent
groups on an individual's behaviours comes to the fore. In the day-to-day pursuit of
group influence, perceptions of peer and referent group approval, and attention to
social issues to sell products ranging from cars through to personal hygiene products.
However many of the techniques that are common place in the commercial marketing
world are equally applicable to the university classroom. This paper focuses on two
Normative outcomes examine the degree to which an individual would modify their
behaviour (participating in class) on the basis on the degree to which they think their
peer (tutorial class) group would approve of the action. Second, it outlines the use and
construct, lasting for an hour or two per session for a fixed period of weeks. It
opinion leader (tutor) praise and approval. As an artificial construct, it also clusters
people together on no greater common basis than a shared enrolment in a subject, and
a preference for a tutorial timeslot. When a tutorial is first convened two major social
dynamics are present - search for appropriate social behaviour, and the acquisition of
peer and referent information concerning appropriate behaviour. Often the designated
opinion leader (tutor) can inform students of behavioural expectations that will be
rewarded (participation). Beyond direct instructions from the tutor, other aspects of in
class social behaviours are derived from social comparison information and normative
pressures.
attention to the communicated experiences and influences of their social group and
the degree to which this information is used to modify the individual's behaviour
(Bearden & Rose, 1990). Individuals with a high attention to social comparison
information scores are more likely to depend on social approval for their behaviours.
The greater the individual's reliance on social comparison information, the more likely
they are to modify their behaviour on the belief that their actions may have negative
include the decision not to participate, or the need to wait before answering a question
until the student is confident that their answer matches the answers of their tutorial
tendencies concerning attention to social pressures, it is not the focus of this research
paper. Social pressures are mediated for actions undertaken whereas normative
Normative outcomes
Normative outcomes are the extent to which consumers are motivated by others'
expectations in a consumption situation (Fisher & Price, 1992). There are two types
of normative outcomes: Fishbein style subjective norms; and referent group influence.
Fishbein style normative outcomes were developed in conjunction with the Fishbein
behavioural intention models (Miniard, 1981; Ryan & Bonfield, 1980) and relates to
the consumer's belief as to the expectations significant others have of their behaviours
they modify their behaviour in line with perceived social pressures (Miniard &
Cohen, 1983; Bearden & Rose, 1990; Fisher & Price, 1992).
The main difference between the two is that Fishbein style norms are orientated
group influence examines the degree to which individuals modify their behaviour as a
Fishbein subjective norms were not used in the development of the scale as preference
was given to measures of normative influence which could be used to test changes in
In addition to the Fishbein style subject norms, two other preexisting major scales
Park and Lessig (1977) focused on the impact of perceived or actual group influence
on behaviour, whereas Bearden et al. (1989) focused on the degree to which an
others". The two scales differed in that Park and Lessig (1977) measure perceived
extrinsic influence, that is, the external influence of others. In contrast, Bearden et al.
(1989) examined intrinsic influence which is the internalized desire to comply with
These two scales were unsuitable for use in examining normative pressures in
university class room environments due to the two scales heavy dependence on
individual seeks technical advice from a respected opinion leader (tutor), and is
related to concepts such as market mavenism and opinion leadership. The focus of
the research was to develop a scale that examines intentions to modify behaviour
based on perceptions of peer approval, rather than examining the active seeking of
Scale Development
Version 1.0 of the scale, was developed to examine product level behaviours as a
result of perceptions of peer influence, and peer approval associated with product
purchase and use behaviours. The scale was operationalised at the product level
initially to disguise the nature of the scale. In effect, the selection of generic product
modify behaviour. However, it is recognised that the operational level of the scale at
the product level is a limitation of the device. As a result, a second generation of the
scale is under development which is operationalised at the tutorial behaviour level,
The scale was derived from the works of Park and Lessig (1977), Miniard & Cohen,
1983), Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel (1989) Bearden and Rose (1990) and Fisher &
Price, (1992). Three items were developed to measure utilitarian influence and value
expression influence, with particular emphasis being placed on the content and
Utilitarian Influence
degree to which an individual believes they have or they would, modify their
Item 1. I would only be interested in a new product if other members of my community would
significance of the perceived reward examined utilitarian influence such as the degree
to which the individual believed that they altered their adoption decisions under the
Value Expression
Value expression is dependent on three elements, image enhancement which is
which the behaviour may modify the perceived popularity of the individual in the
Item 4. I would not buy a new product if I thought it would make me less popular amongst my
peers.
The final two items outline the significance of peer approval in determining an
the importance of the perception of the potential reaction of the group to the
Item 5. The most important thing in determining whether I would try a new product is how I
Item 6. I would wait until I knew how my friends thought about a new product before I
considered trying it
The normative outcomes scale has been tested six studies in five different classroom
environments. In five of the six instances, the research design has followed the same
procedure of correlating summed scores from Bearden and Rose's (1990) attention to
comparison information (ATSCI) scale and the normative outcomes scale. Study 3
deviated from the established pattern in that it used normative components of Bearden
normative scale (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Overall, the purpose of the six studies
has been to examine the level of internal validity and temporal reliability over a
period of two years. The results of the individual studies are summarized in Table 1
The results outlined in Table 1 demonstrate that the scale has a reasonably stable level
of alpha reliability over time, despite the drop in alpha levels incurred in 1999.
Further testing of the scale in 2000 is required to determine if this a consistent trend or
a seasonal anomaly. Overall, in six studies conducted using the normative outcome
scale, it has achieved an alpha of over .8 in five, and had a significant correlation with
normative outcomes across all six applications of the survey. Whilst some variation
in scale item responses is noted between various sub groupings of survey respondents,
the context of the samples used thus far that normative outcomes is a universal
The normative outcomes scale has four main uses for classroom teaching, assessment
First, it provides an overview of the degree to which the students are modifying their
the low normative outcome scores are not superior to high levels. Instead, they
positive outcomes, and perceptions of positive rewards for participation rather than
potential for negative outcomes. It is noted that non participation is assumed to result
from the absence of a belief of positive reward for participation, rather than a belief in
a negative outcome. Many students operate under a principle of being safe rather than
Summed item totals of the scale items and the full scale can be used to determine
whether as a group, the class tends towards independent behaviour, or whether they
have a tendency towards modifying their behaviours on the basis of perceived social
rewards. Teaching strategies can be adapted to deliver normative specific messages
to student groups, for example, class groups with high scores on the normative
outcomes summed items can be told that their failure to participate is letting their
classmates down, and that their classmates would be disappointed by the lack of
participation.
Second, the scale can be paired with attention to social comparison information and/or
in the class environment (Feick & Price, 1987).. Classes with average to high
mavenism or opinion leadership scores will be more inclined to seek peer approval
from the opinion leaders. Classes with low normative scores and higher opinion
leadership will be more likely to engage in debate and open discussions than classes
Thirdly, the two normative influence, utilitarianism and value expression have
product purchasing. Consequently, class groups with high utilitarian influence scores
(items 1-3) need to be structured in a manner that encourages peer support amongst
the students. In addition, group based exercises and assessment items which create
support networks and approval structures are useful for engendering positive group
norms.
Value expressive pressures indicate that the student is concerned with personal
popularity and their belief as the degree to which the action they are considering
performing reflects the expected actions of their friends. Influencing this aspect of
normative pressure for teaching is more complex than utilitarian outcomes. Value
behaviour environment - those students with higher levels of value expression will
pause before responding in order to seek normative information concerning their peer
responses. This has a particular impact in class room discussions where topics may
have two or more possible answers. Value expressive pressures will force students to
delay their declaration of a particular stance until a group opinion has declared their
position - in some cases students may change their answer they declare publicly from
an anonymously submitted answer if they believe that the group pressures favor a
specific response.
One of the key issues raised by the use of normative outcomes is the question of
marketing education. Are the tools and techniques of market segmentation and
For the purpose of this paper, the underlying assumption concerning the use of the
scale has been that the method is both appropriate and effective. Leaving question of
efficiency and effectiveness aside, the psychographic profile present several problems
assume some segments are of more inherent value to the marketer than others, and
that these segments should be the focus of the efforts of the marketing campaign. By
implication, the use of segmentation strategies may lead individuals to believe that the
core resource of teaching should be used only on those student segments where value
is likely to be returned. However the purpose of the use of the technique is to develop
inclusive teaching modes that enable the teacher to modify their educational offering
class group.
There is also a second risk inherent in student profiling that the student's membership
easily overcome at a practical level by not collecting key descriptive data, such as
the study has been that gender has not had a significant bearing on normative
collecting the demographic data which has no bearing on the survey results.
Future research directions
There are two further research directions being undertaken: the development of a
The tutorial level normative outcomes scale began preliminary testing in Semester 2,
1999. Based on the current normative outcomes scale, it used tutorial context specific
participate in tutorial activities. At the time of authoring of this paper, the tutorial
normative outcomes scale has only been examined in a preliminary pilot test, and has
not yet been subject to the full research design used in the development of the
The second area of further research is the formal development of a teaching response
matrix, based on the student profiles. A preliminary series of teaching responses was
Conclusion
Normative outcomes, measured at the product behavioral level, are applicable in the
environments such as tutorials, where students who have a higher regard for
normative pressures will delay their behaviour until positive or negative normative
outcomes have been identified. The research outlined the six item product level
normative outcomes scale, and its application over five class groups where it was
found to have been consistently reliable over the 18 month research timeframe.
normative outcomes in class groups. Finally, the paper outlined two further research
directions, the continued development of the normative outcomes scale and the
Bearden, W.O. & Rose, R.L. (1990). Attention to social comparison information : An
individual difference factor affecting consumer conformity. Journal of Consumer
Research, 16, 461-471.
Feick, L.F. & Price, L.L. (1987). The market maven: A diffuser of marketplace
information. Journal of Marketing, 51, 83-97.
Fisher, R.J. & Price, L.L. (1992). An investigation into the social context of early
adoption behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 477-486.
Miniard, P.W. (1981). Examining the diagnostic utility of the Fishbein behavioural
intention model. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 42-47.
Miniard, P.W. & Cohen, J.B. (1983). Modelling personal and normative influences on
behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 169-180.
Ryan, M.J. & Bonfield, E.H. (1980). Fishbein's intentions model: A test of external
and pragmatic validity. Journal of Marketing, 44, 82-95.
Park, W.C. & Lessig, V.P. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in
susceptibility of referent group influence. Journal of Consumer Research,4, 102-110.