130 The Marketing Book
their very nature, they will probably choose a
number of innovative products just to try
them out. But, while these sensation-seekers
are more likely to try many new products,
they are also likely to retain few of them in
their repertoires (Mittelstaedt et al., 1976).
Adaptors, however, will presumably show
two patterns of behaviour. Those who are not
much interested in the product field will, as
we originally thought, be suspicious of new
products; in both studies the buyers of fewest
brands or products were adaptors. Yet those
adaptors who have a high level of personal
involvement with a product field will act quite
differently. Cognitive style itself does not
change much over the lifetime of the individ-
ual, but its effects can be accentuated by the
degree of engagement the individual feels in
the activity at hand. The consumer who dis-
plays a very high level of commitment to
acquiring a healthier lifestyle, for instance,
will continue to act consistently with their
underlying cognitive style, but their behaviour
may be quite different from that of a less
committed consumer whose cognitive style is
similar (Chaffee and Roser, 1986). Those adap-
tors who are fundamentally ‘converted’ to the
pursuit of a healthier way of life and, thereby,
to healthier eating, may well seek out not one
or two, but as many appropriate items as
possible, showing a greater assiduousness in
their search and evaluation than other con-
sumers, adaptive or innovative.
This possibility was tested in the third
study, which was concerned with new brands
within ‘healthy’ food classes (Foxall, 1995).
This time, respondents were asked to indicate
their level of personal involvement with
‘healthy’ foods. The instrument used to meas-
ure this construct was the Zaichkowsky (1987)
Personal Involvement Inventory, which meas-
ures ego involvement or the personal interest
shown by individuals in a named product
field. Once again, no correlation was found
between the number of innovations bought
and KAI, and well over half the sample were
adaptors. More importantly, the results con-
firmed the hypothesis: the highest level of
purchase was shown by more-involved
adaptors.
Let us pause a moment to consider the
implications of these findings. It appears that
the post-launch market for new foods is not a
homogeneous collection of innovators whose
personalities predispose them to be venture-
some, risk-taking, flexible and self-assured –
as the textbooks portray initial adopters.
Rather, that market consists of three psycho-
graphic segments, each with its own person-
ality profile: less-involved adaptors (who buy
least), innovators (who buy an intermediate
number regardless of their level of involve-
ment) and more-involved adaptors (who buy
most). Moreover, each of these segments has
its own distinctive style of decision making.
Each segment is likely to become aware of
new brands/products in a different fashion, to
search and evaluate information in its own
way, to choose uniquely and to have a distinc-
tive post-decisional reaction. The launch mar-
keting strategy for a new product needs to
accommodate all three.
The conventional wisdom, which assumes
a uniform process of consumer decision mak-
ing, must be modified to include considerations
not only of level of involvement, but also of
consumers’ differing cognitive styles. But
results for a single product field, even if they
are gained from three separate and increasingly
sophisticated studies, hardly constitute a court
revolution. Replication is required on several
dimensions. Foods are often thought of as
‘inherently’ low-involving items: it would,
therefore, be useful to repeat the research using
a more ‘inherently’ involving product. The first
three studies have involved the initial stage of
the product life cycle: some evidence for or
against the presence of differing cognitive
styles among consumers of an established
product is needed. These three studies have
also involved purchasing: what evidence is
there of a similar pattern in consumption? And
do situational influences, as opposed to cogni-
tive factors, affect the results?