SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE: A STUdY IN TURKEY

Figen ebren

Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey In this paper the Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence (SUSCEP) Scale (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989) dimensionality in Turkey is explored. Susceptibility to interpersonal influence is a general trait that varies across individuals for which a person’s relative influ-enceability in one situation tends to have a significant positive relationship to his or her influ-enceability generally. A survey of 268 university students in Antalya, Turkey was conducted using the structured questionnaire of the SUSCEP. Susceptibility to interpersonal influence has been conceptualized as being either informational or normative. The factor analysis of the data consistently revealed a two-factor correlated structure. A comparison of normative and informational scores based on individualistic/collectivistic culture was also made.

Keywords: youth, susceptibility to interpersonal influence, individualism, collectivism, consumer, Turkey.

Interpersonal processes are dependent upon an individual attending to and acting upon the beliefs, thoughts, and expectations of others. The influence that others have on individual decisions is often due to a person’s concern or caring about others’ reactions to his/her behavior. Because of this, consumers’ behavior is influenced by concerns over what others might think of them or how others might act toward them as a function of their product choice and usage. It is possible to make predictions concerning the relative importance of interpersonal

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2009, 37(8), 1051-1064© Society for Personality Research (Inc.)DOI 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.8.1051

1051

Figen Ebren, PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Communication, Department of Public Relations and Advertising, Akdeniz University, Campus, Antalya, Turkey.The author would like to thank The Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Akdeniz University for the contribution of the author’s share of the publication payment for this article.Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Dr. Figen Ebren, Faculty of Communication, Akdeniz University, Campus Antalya, Turkey. Phone: +90 242 227 59 872113 Fax: +90 242 310 1531; Email: figenebren@yahoo.com

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE1052

antecedents to consumers’ purchase intentions by measuring consumers’ predis-positions to act on the social cues available at the time a purchase or consumption decision is being made (Bearden & Rose, 1990). The objective of this research was to discover if the SUSCEP Scale devised by Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel in 1989 was valid for a Turkish population.

Interpersonal Influence and socIal comparIson theory Festinger (1954) hypothesized that individuals have a basic drive to evaluate

their own opinions and abilities based on social comparison theory. As per his thoughts individuals compare their opinions and abilities with those of others and that comparison may affect self-evaluation. Festinger also postulated that social behaviors were predicated on the assumptions that individuals seek a sense of normalcy and accuracy about their world and that individuals affiliate more with others when they desire others’ views about their own thoughts and behaviors. Social comparison theory assumes that the emphasis is on the use of others to evaluate how well one is doing something, or to assess the appropriateness of one’s opinions as an original idea. Moreover, as per the theory, the abilities people have and their most effective roles depend on information beyond their performance relative to other people and their standing on performance-related attributes relative to others. The extension of the social comparison theory has been the realm of psychological well-being, that is, one’s relative standing in comparison to similar others that has an impact on satisfaction with life (Himsel & Goldberg, 2003).

The major independent variable of interest in social comparison research has been interpersonal similarity. However, in considering the comparison of ability, there are at least two senses in which people may be similar. People may be similar in terms of the ability in question (foreground similarity), or they may be similar in terms of factors other than, but possibly related to, the ability in question (background similarity) (Dakin & Arrowood, 1981). A person tends not to evaluate his/her opinions or abilities by comparison with others who are too divergent from him-/herself. If some other person’s ability is too different from one’s own, either much greater or much less, it is not possible to evaluate one’s own ability accurately by comparison (Festinger, 1954).

According to Lewin (1958), research involving social influence and consumption began with the effort to persuade women to feed their family sweetbreads during World War II (see Schroeder, 1996). Until the mid-1960s, there was little pertinent evidence either to support or to refute Festinger’s contentions (as cited in Dakin & Arrowood, 1981). In 1966, however, a number of researchers used a common research paradigm in independent tests of the interpersonal similarity hypothesis. The evidence suggested that information

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 1053

seeking can, and does, occur at all levels of interpersonal similarity (Dakin & Arrowood, 1981).

According to Warneryd (1988), two main concerns dominate consumer social influence research: reference group influence and individual differences. In the first case, scholars have concentrated on developing a taxonomy of brand and product decisions that vary in their susceptibility to social influence. In the second case, efforts have been focussed on identifying individual or group differences in consumer interpersonal influence (Clark, Zboja, & Goldsmith, 2007).

The influence of others is an important determinant of an individual’s behavior. Portrayal of products being consumed in social situations and the use of prominent/attractive spokespersons endorsing products is evidence of this belief. Further, models used to explain consumer behavior frequently include interpersonal influence. Susceptibility to interpersonal influence is a general trait that varies from one individual to another and a person’s relative influenceability in one situation tends to have a significant positive relationship to his or her influenceability in a range of other social situations (see Bearden et al., 1989). Susceptibility to interpersonal influence has been conceptualized as being either informational or normative (see Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1990) and its con-ceptualization as a personality trait dates back to the psychology literature of the 1950s. This view was bolstered by McGuire (1968) with a seminal work on in-fluenceability, which described susceptibility to interpersonal influence as being related to global personality traits such as self-esteem (Clark et al., 2007).

the consumer suspectIbIlIty to Interpersonal Influence (suscep) scale

The SUSCEP Scale has been used by many researchers. The scale was originally developed with a sample of university students by Bearden et al. (1989) and is used to measure consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence, attention-to-social-comparison information, and self-esteem constructs. A year later, the authors summarized a series of additional analyses designed to further examine the dimensionality and validity of the SUSCEP Scale using the same constructs. In 1996, Schroeder examined the psychometric properties of the 12-item SUSCEP Scale, discussed its potential applications for consumer and social psychology, and made contributions to the validation of the scale. He used the normative influence factor, the informational influence factor, individuation, self-understanding, private and public self-consciousness, and social-anxiety constructs. D’Rozario and Choudhury (2000) assessed the impact of assimilation on a consumer’s susceptibility to interpersonal influence in samples of first-generation Armenian and Chinese immigrants to the US. D’Rozario (2001a) examined the structure and properties of the SUSCEP

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE1054

Scale for non-Euro-Americans with a sample of African-Asian and Hispanic Americans. In D’Rozario’s study (2001b) the structure, psychometric properties, and mean levels of the SUSCEP Scale were assessed in samples chosen from two groups of immigrants that had each recently arrived in the US, namely Chinese Americans and Armenian Americans, again by using the susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence Scale. Mangleburg, Doney, and Bristol (2004) examined the phenomenon of teenagers’ shopping with friends with regard to whether or not shopping with friends might enhance teens’ attitudes toward retailing and their tendency to spend more in terms of susceptibility to interpersonal influence, sentiment toward retailing, relative knowledge, and enjoyment of shopping constructs. Mourali, Laroche, and Pons (2005) also speculated on susceptibility to interpersonal influence in relation to individual differences. The SUSCEP Scale and individualistic orientation constructs were used. In a study with a sample of French and English Canadians they found that susceptibility to interpersonal influence also varied systematically across cultures with varying degrees of individualism-collectivism. Chan and Zhang (2007) examined the influence of peers and media celebrities on young people’s endorsement of materialistic values in China and used susceptibility to interpersonal influence, imitation of celebrity models, and materialism constructs. Hermans, Schaefer, and Haytko (2007) examined the structure and properties of the SUSCEP Scale using a sample of Chinese and American college students.

culture

The way individuals relate to a group, however, is affected not only by individual-level differences, it is also systematically influenced by cultural and societal values and norms (Hofstede, 2001). In this regard Hofstede describes the relationship between the individual and the collective as a fundamental dimension on which societies differ.

In defining the concepts of individualism and collectivism, some authors tend to focus on the manifest level of psychological functioning, such as specific opinions, attitudes, and behavioral tendencies that cover such phenomena as togetherness versus isolation, dependency versus self-sufficiency, and coop-erativeness versus competitiveness. Others consider deep-level processes − so-called implicit knowledge. They refer to assumptions that people make in their relationships with their social worlds. These assumptions have been well articulated by Hui and Triandis (1986), who postulate that the main difference between collectivism and individualism concerns the “basic unit of survival”. For individualists, the basic unit is the self; for collectivists, it is a group or collectivity. In other words, from the individualist perspective the well-being of the self is the main criterion of adaptation; from the collectivist viewpoint it is

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 1055

the well-being of the group. All cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral differences between collectivism and individualism stem from this fundamental difference in implicit assumptions about the social world. Basic social relations in collectivist groups are founded on the normative principle that the well-being of the group should take priority over the well-being of an individual. Groups based on individualist principles do not espouse this normative principle; rather they assume that each individual cares for his or her own well-being and cooperates with the group as long as it meets his or her own interests (Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994).

A culture with a less individualistic orientation, in addition to greater fashion consciousness and greater concern with external impressions, would be more susceptible to normative influence. That is, the members of a collectivist culture are expected to have a greater need to identify or enhance their image with significant others through the acquisition and use of products and brands, and to be more willing to conform to the expectations of others regarding purchase decisions than are individualistic cultures. The differences in susceptibility to normative influence are, in part, due to differences in individualistic orientation (Mourali et al., 2005).

cultural perspectIve for turkey

Findings of cross-cultural studies and local studies regarding the ongoing status of Turkish cultural experience have been found to contradict each other. Turkish social psychologists have pointed out that ongoing cultural practices in Turkey are made up of both individualistic and collectivistic trends and that Turkish cultural structure cannot be classified as being solely either collectivistic or individualistic.

According to Goregenli (1995, 1997) and Uskul (1998), individualism is pervasive especially among the urban, well-educated, and young generations in Turkey. Imamoglu (1987) and Imamoglu and Gultekin (1993) argued that Turkish culture cannot be evaluated as solely collectivistic, insisting that Turkish cultural experiences include both individualistic and collectivistic features. Kagitcibasi (1996a) indicated that changing societies like Turkey might become individualistic while keeping their emotional relatedness and some collectivistic values. Kagitcibasi (1990, 1994, 1996b, 1997) noted that the autonomous-related self emerging in the family model of emotional interdependence combines within itself both collectivistic and individualistic elements at the individual level. Karadayi (1996) included youth from different levels of socioeconomic status and education in his study and found that young Turkish people became autonomous in their attitudes, values, and behaviors while keeping their relatedness with their families (see Yetim, 2003).

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE1056

METHOd

sample and procedure

The purpose of this study was to explore the dimensionality of the SUSCEP Scale (Bearden et al., 1989) with a Turkish sample. No literature exists regarding the SUSCEP scale factor structure of Turkish nationals. H1: A two-factor SUSCEP scale structure of normative and informational influence will be supported by the data for the Turkish sample.H2: The mean level of consumer susceptibility to normative influence will be low for the Turkish sample.

To examine the SUSCEP in Turkey, a sample of undergraduate students from a well known university in Antalya, Turkey was used. The original SUSCEP questionnaire was translated from English to Turkish as is. A total of 268 usable classroom-administered surveys were returned. The participants were 155 male (57.8%) and 113 female (42.2%). There were 7% of the students aged between 18 and 20, 56% between 21 to 23, 30% between 24 to 26, and 7% 27 and older.

The respondents were requested to mark their responses for each statement on a Likert scale where 1 referred to strongly disagree and 7 meant strongly agree. The convenience sampling method was used for data collection.

RESULTS

The original SUSCEP Scale (Bearden et al., 1989) had 12 items in three dimensions: 4 utilitarian, 4 value-expressive, and 4 informational. Bearden et al. subsequently grouped the 4 utilitarian and 4 value-expressive items into one dimension which was labeled normative. Most of the initial studies showed the SUSCEP to have a two-dimensional structure.

relIabIlIty

A factor analysis of the 12-item SUSCEP Scale was conducted for the sample. The sample had an overall SUSCEP scale coefficient alpha of .89 with the 12 items. The scale items and descriptive figures are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1turkIsh suscep scale Items

Item Description M SD

1 I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a product class. 5.23 1.772 If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same brands that they buy. 4.25 1.973 It is important that others like the products and brands I buy. 3.77 1.974 To make sure I buy the right product or brand, I often observe what others are buying and using. 3.82 2.03

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 1057

Table 1 continued

Item Description M SD

5 I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of them. 3.14 1.966 I often identify with other people by purchasing the same products and brands they purchase. 2.04 1.537 If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product. 2.21 1.638 When buying products, I generally purchase those brands I think others will approve of. 3.07 1.969 I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others. 1.96 1.4410 I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy. 3.29 2.0911 If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy. 2.50 1.7312 I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that others purchase. 1.88 1.60

valIdIty

The factor structure of the SUSCEP Scale was examined through an EFA using SPSS 11.5 and a CFA using LISREL 8.54 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2003). Exploratory Factor Analysis According to the requirements of the research, Kaiser-Meyor-Olkin’s (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests were performed. KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are both tests that can be used to determine the factorability of the matrix. The value of KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .897 for the Turkish sample which shows the factorability is assumed.

The analysis confirmed that 12 items accounted for 64.04% of the variance. Item loadings ranged between .54 and .88. Item-total correlations were used for item analysis and they were between .74 and .35. With a cut-off point of 0.40, only three of the item correlations were below that point. A principal component analysis with a quartimax rotation was performed to extract the items. This rotation means that the loading matrix has the ideal simple structure (Knüsel, 2008). The results were found to be significant (p < .001) for the scale level after quartimax rotation. Two factors emerged for the Turkish sample and thus the first hypothesis was supported. Table 2 shows the relevant portion of the factor loadings for the sample.

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE1058

TABLE 2factor – coeffIcIents of the SuScEp scale

Factor Item # Factor coefficient

Normative 6 0.876 11 0.858 2 0.824 12 0.822 5 0.712 9 0.657 3 0.708 8 0.535 Informational 10 0.839 4 0.795 1 0.784 7 0.742

N = 268

The first factor was made up of four value-expressive items (items 1, 4, 7, and 10) and the second factor was composed of the eight normative influence items (items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12). The sample had an overall SUSCEP Scale coefficient alpha of .89 and coefficient alphas of .90 and .84 for the normative and informational factors respectively.

The exploratory factor analysis resulted in lower normative mean value supporting the second hypothesis (see Table 3). Individualism had a direct negative impact on consumer susceptibility to normative influence and no effect on consumer susceptibility to informational influence.

TABLE 3comparIsons of two factors of suscep scale

M SD

Consumers’ susceptibility to normative influence 2.51 1.32 Consumers’ susceptibility to informational influence 4.27 1.60

N = 268 (Turkey, current)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis The study’s scale validity and other measurement properties were tested by following the procedure recommended by Jöreskog and Sörbom (2003). To assess the validity, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted. Using LISREL 8.54, a covariance matrix of the items was analyzed with a maximum likelihood (ML) model.

Since the X2 statistic is known for its sensitivity, to decide the model/data fit, X2/df rate (normed chi square – NC) was used. However, there is no clear-cut

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 1059

guideline about what value of NC is minimally acceptable. Bollen (1989) notes that values for the NC of 2.0, 3.0, or even as high as 5.0 have been recommended as indicating reasonable fit (Kline, 2005).

The goodness-of-fit index is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in the data that is explained by the hypothesized model and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) is an estimation of the discrepancy between the hypothesized and true population model which takes into consideration the error of approximation (Byrne, 2001).

There are many model fit indices described in the SEM literature, and new indices are being developed all the time. Here the minimal sets of fit indices are to be reported and interpreted. These statistics include (1) the model chi-square

0.70

0.33

0.30

0.30

0.52

0.40

0.23

0.59

0.33

0.66

0.50

0.49

0.54

0.82

0.83

0.84

0.69

0.78

0.88

0.64

0.82

0.58

0.71

0.71

normative

informative 1.00

0.50

1.00

-0.14

0.22

-0.03

-0.16

0.10

-0.10

0.15

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

I9

I10

I11

I12

Figure 1. Path diagram of the model.

Chi-Square = 104.37 df = 44 p <0.00000 RMSEA = 0.072

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE1060

(X2), (2) the Steiger-Lind root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) with its 90% confidence interval, (3) the Bentler comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and (4) the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The fit indices such as incremental fit indices (NFI, NNFI, PNFI, RNI, PCFI), predictive fit indices (ECVI, CAIC, BIC), absolute fit indices (GFI, AGFI, PGFI) are other ones reported by Kline (2005). The model in this study displayed the following results: X2/df = 2.37, NFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.097, and CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.072, GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.075. Figure 1 illustrates the path diagram.

In this respect, RMSEA indicates acceptable fit and other practical indices are above the suggested 0.90 level. The CFA model has shown good overall fit and the items have shown strong representatives by all loadings on the expected factors.

dISCUSSION

Consumer decision processes are often influenced by other people. Bearden et al. (1989) developed a scale to measure individual differences in consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Though their scale has been widely validated with American samples, its application to non-American samples has been very limited (D’Rozario, 2001a). In the present study the properties, structure, and mean levels of the susceptibility to interpersonal influence construct was analyzed across a sample of Turkish young consumers. In doing so, we sought to extend the findings of the original study by assessing the stability of the properties of the SUSCEP Scale within a time period and across countries. Although the scale was developed nearly two decades ago, it is still valid today and has been found to be reliable in a number of different countries.

The analysis demonstrated that the findings of this study are consistent with those of the original study. A two-factor structure for the Turkish sample on the SUSCEP scale was revealed and was found to be reliable across the sample of students. The analyses revealed that a two-factor representation, consisting of the normative and informational facets of susceptibility to interpersonal influence, provides an excellent description of the data. These findings are consistent with the results of the study by Bearden et al. (1989).

Individualism has been shown to have a major impact on SUSCEP and has a direct negative impact on consumer susceptibility to normative influence and no effect on consumer susceptibility to informational influence (see Mourali et al., 2005, p. 169). Kline (2005) hypothesized that consumers in more collectivist cultures tend to be more susceptible to normative influence than are those from less collectivistic cultures.

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 1061

People with a high level of conformity value tend to make decisions that conform to the expectations of their close social environment, while those with a low level of conformity value are likely to focus more on their own personal needs and care less about others’ expectations (Bearden et al., 1989).

Methodologically, this study has been carefully designed to ensure a high degree of validity in the conclusion drawn. The study also offers a number of practical implications. The absence of significant differences in susceptibility to informational influence among young Turkish consumers suggests that word-of-mouth communications and the use of interpersonal sources of information are important.

REFERENCES

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473-481.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1990). Further validation of the Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence Scale. Advances In Consumer Research, 17, 770-776.

Bearden, W. O., & Rose, R. L. (1990). Attention to social comparison information: An individual difference factor affecting consumer conformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 461-471.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications and

programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Chan, K., & Zhang, C. (2007). Living in a celebrity-mediated social world: The Chinese experience.

Young Consumers, 8(2), 139-152.Clark, R. A., Zboja, J. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2007). Status consumption and role-relaxed

consumption: A tale of two retail consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14, 45-59.

Dakin, S., & Arrowood, A. J. (1981). The social comparison of ability. Human Relations, 34, 89-109.

D’Rozario, D. (2001a). A cross-cultural re-assessment of the Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence trait. Marketing Management Journal, 11(1), 1-14.

D’Rozario, D. (2001b). The structure and properties of the Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence Scale in two immigrant populations in the US. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13(2), 77-101.

D’Rozario, D., & Choudhury, P. K. (2000). Effect of assimilation on consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 290-307.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.Goregenli, M. (1995). Individualism-collectivism orientations in the Turkish culture: A preliminary

study (in Turkish). Turkish Journal of Psychology, 10, 1-14.Goregenli, M. (1997). Individualist-collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 28, 787-794.Hermans, C. M., Schaefer, A. D., & Haytko, D. (2007). A cross-national examination of the

dimensionality of the Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence Scale. International Journal of Business Research, 7(5), 186-191.

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE1062

Himsel, A. J., & Goldberg, W. A. (2003). Social comparisons and satisfaction with the division of housework: Implications for men’s and women’s role strain. Journal of Family Issues, 24(7), 843-866.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225-248.

Imamoglu, E. O. (1987). An interdependence model of human development. In C. Kağıtçıbaşı (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 138-145). Lisse, Holland: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Imamoglu, E. O., & Gultekin, Y. Y. (1993). Problems of university youth in the light of recommended balanced society-individual model: Evaluation, comment and recommendation to the studies conducted in the period between 1982-1992 (in Turkish). Turkish Journal of Psychology, 8, 27-41.

Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL VIII: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: SSI.Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (1990). Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change.

In J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural Perspectives: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989 (pp. 135-200). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: Toward a new formulation. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kağıtçıbaşı, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 52-66). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (1996a). The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis (in Turkish). Turkish Journal of Psychology, 11, 36-43.

Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (1996b). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J.W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kağıtçıbaşı (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology (Vol. 3, pg 1-49). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Karadayi, F. (1996). Differentiations in related autonomy. Paper presented at IXth National Psychology Congress, Bosphorus University, Istanbul, October.

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and collectivism, theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New York, Guilford Press.

Knüsel, L. (2008). Chi square as a rotation criterion in factor analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52(9), 4243-4252.

Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 197-211). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Liu, J., & Dongmi, W. (2007). Impact of culture on consumers’ propensity to innovate and susceptibility to interpersonal influences. Umeå University, Unpublished master’s thesis, spring semester, Sweden.

McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130-1187). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Mangleburg, T. F., Doney, P. M., & Bristol, T. (2004). Shopping with friends and teens’ susceptibility to peer influence. Journal of Retailing, 80, 101-116.

Mourali, M., Laroche, M., & Pons, F. (2005). Individualistic orientation and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(3), 164-173.

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 1063

Schroeder J. E. (1996). An analysis of the Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(3), 585-599.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Approach, 25, 173-180.

Uskul, A. K. (1998). How to insult effectively across cultures? Insults as mirrors of the self. Unpublished master’s thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Warneryd, K. E. (1988). Social influence on economic behavior. In W. F. Van Raaij, G. M. Van Veldhoven, & K. E. Warneryd (Eds.), Handbook of economic psychology (pp. 206-248). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Yetim, U. (2003). The impacts of individualism/collectivism, self-esteem, and feeling of mastery on life satisfaction among the Turkish university students and academicians. Social Indicators Research, 61, 297-317.