Motivated Consumer Innovativeness Scale

What it measures

A 20-item, four-dimensional scale measuring consumer innovativeness as a function of underlying purchase motivation rather than innovativeness as a unidimensional personality trait. Developed across five studies with approximately 2,600 respondents using item generation from literature, depth interviews, and quantitative exploratory research; refined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis; and validated for convergent, discriminant, predictive, and test–retest reliability. The four dimensions — functional (buying innovations for performance and task management improvement), hedonic (buying innovations for sensory and affective stimulation), social (buying innovations to differentiate oneself and impress others), and cognitive (buying innovations for intellectual stimulation) — each demonstrate strong internal consistency and predictive validity for corresponding innovation purchase intentions, outperforming both the Venkatraman and Price (1990) Cognitive/Sensory Innovativeness scale and the Tellis et al. (2009) Global Consumer Innovativeness scale.

Response format

5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree); 7-point version used in Study 4 validation sample

Scale items

Social

• I love to use innovations that impress others.
• I like to own a new product that distinguishes me from others who do not own this new product.
• I prefer to try new products with which I can present myself to my friends and neighbors.
• I like to outdo others, and I prefer to do this by buying new products which my friends do not have.
• I deliberately buy novelties that are visible to others and which command respect from others.

Functional

• If a new time-saving product is launched, I will buy it right away.
• If a new product gives me more comfort than my current product, I would not hesitate to buy it.
• If an innovation is more functional, then I usually buy it.
• If I discover a new product in a more convenient size, I am very inclined to buy this.
• If a new product makes my work easier, then this new product is a "must" for me.

Hedonic

• Using novelties gives me a sense of personal enjoyment.
• It gives me a good feeling to acquire new products.
• Innovations make my life exciting and stimulating.
• Acquiring an innovation makes me happier.
• The discovery of novelties makes me playful and cheerful.

Cognitive

• I mostly buy those innovations that satisfy my analytical mind.
• I find innovations that need a lot of thinking intellectually challenging and therefore I buy them instantly.
• I often buy new products that make me think logically.
• I often buy innovative products that challenge the strengths and weaknesses of my intellectual skills.
• I am an intellectual thinker who buys new products because they set my brain to work.

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

The four dimensions should be used and interpreted separately — the authors explicitly caution against summing all 20 items into a single overall innovativeness score, as the scale was not conceptualised or validated this way. A consumer who scores high on only one dimension would be miscategorised as non-innovative by a summed composite. The overall MCI structure can be considered formative at the second-order level (four dimensions → consumer innovativeness), while each first-order dimension is a reflective construct. Test–retest reliability (36–60 day interval, n = 111): fMCI r = .56, sMCI r = .68, hMCI r = .72, cMCI r = .75. No dimension showed significant correlation with the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability scale. AVE for fMCI dips to .44 in Study 2 (below the .50 threshold) but exceeds .50 in all other studies; authors retained items for content validity. Key finding: older people are as functionally innovative as younger people, challenging the general consensus in the innovativeness literature. CFA fit across five studies: TLI = .934–.980, CFI = .943–.982, RMSEA = .033–.059. The four-factor correlated model consistently outperformed null, one-factor, and four-factor uncorrelated models. Originally validated in a Western European (Belgian) context; motivation taxonomies on which dimensions are based have been validated cross-culturally (Schwartz, 1992).

Recommended companion scales

Citation

Vandecasteele, B., & Geuens, M. (2010). Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4), 308–318.

Keywords