Wk 9 Diverse Opinion Leaders Leadership in Media Questions Discussion Read the material and answer the questions. Please answer in detail and give appropri

Wk 9 Diverse Opinion Leaders Leadership in Media Questions Discussion Read the material and answer the questions. Please answer in detail and give appropriate examples. It doesn’t have to be formal like writing. Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Identifying Influence: Development
and Validation of the Connectivity,
Persuasiveness, and Maven Scales
Franklin J. Boster1 , Michael R. Kotowski2 , Kyle R. Andrews3 , & Kim Serota1,4
1 Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
2 Department of Communication, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
3 Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA
4 Department of Management and Marketing, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA
The use of influential network members to facilitate the process of behavioral change has
long been a goal of communication campaign designers, particularly in health settings.
In a series of 3 studies, measures of 3 types of influential others (those who are highly
connected, persuasive, and informed) who play an important role in the dissemination of
information through social networks are developed and validated. Across studies, the data
were, in the main, consistent with the hypotheses, suggesting that these indices measure
what they purport to measure and that they do it with high reliability. The potential for
the connectivity, persuasiveness, and health maven constructs to increase the effectiveness
of the diffusion of behavioral change is discussed.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01531.x
Communication theory and research has emphasized the importance of influence in
conceptual and empirical work examining opinion leaders and opinion leadership.
These constructs play a pivotal role in large corpora of communication scholarship
that are focused on the diffusion of innovations and social influence. For instance,
based on an exhaustive review of the diffusion of innovations literature Rogers
(2003, p. 388) concluded that ‘‘Change agents’ success in securing the adoption
of innovations by clients is positively related to the extent that he or she works
through opinion leaders.’’ Moreover, from early studies on factors shaping decisions
in arenas as diverse as fashion, marketing, and public affairs (Katz & Lazarsfeld,
1955; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1948) to contemporary health interventions
designed to reduce serious threats, such as HIV infections (Kelly et al., 1992), or
promote healthy practices, such as mammogram testing among members of certain
Corresponding author: Franklin Boster; e-mail: boster@msu.edu
178
Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 178–196 © 2011 International Communication Association
F. J. Boster et al.
Identifying Influence
high-risk populations (Earp et al., 2002), opinion leaders have been shown to be
crucial elements in the social influence equation.
Nevertheless, identifying network members who are highly influential may prove
difficult. As scholars and practitioners alike have noted, simple strategies, such
as equating influence with positions in social structure, for example, a leadership
position, are inadequate (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955; Keller & Berry, 2003; Rogers, 2003).
Notably, the choice of strategy to identify the highly influential is fundamentally a
measurement issue, and measurement error, either in the form of designating those
who are not highly influential as highly influential or failing to identify those who are
highly influential, will result in misestimating their impact on the process of diffusion
and social influence.
Scholars have used a number of methods to identify influential persons
(Celentano et al., 2000; Earp et al., 2002; Kelly et al., 1992; Miller, Klotz, & Eckholdt,
1998; Soumerai et al., 1998; see Valente & Pumpuang, 2007, for a review). Nevertheless, with few exceptions (e.g., Flynn, Goldsmith, & Eastman, 1996), little work
has focused on developing a highly valid and highly reliable means of identification
that avoids prohibitively complex or time-consuming data collection efforts. More
important, these few exceptions fail to address the full breadth of the influence
construct. Seminal to any effort to measure a construct is the content validity
of the measure, and an important part of establishing that a given measuring
instrument has substantial content validity is showing that the definition of the
concept is congruent with the content of the indicators included in the measuring
instrument.
Although definitions of opinion leadership vary, Rogers’s (2003, pp. 37–38)
notion that opinion leadership consists of the ability to influence others’ attitudes
and behavior frequently and in a desired direction is a useful beginning point.
Opinion leaders are those who exert opinion leadership, and the pivotal content
validity question can be rephrased as, ‘‘What are the defining characteristics of such
persons?’’ Classical (e.g., Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) and contemporary (e.g., Rogers,
2003) answers to this question suggest that opinion leaders have at least three
particularly important characteristics. They are very knowledgeable in the sphere
in which they exert opinion leadership, they are well connected socially, and they
are effective at presenting their ample knowledge to their numerous contacts. These
attributes form three quantitative, continuous dimensions of individual differences,
with people anchoring the high ends of these dimensions being highly informed,
connected, and persuasive. An opinion leader, or superdiffuser,1 is someone high on
all three dimensions. At this point, it is unclear if there are critical values of these
three attributes that produce qualitative, rather than just quantitative, differences in
the ability to diffuse information or influence others, and, if so, what they might be.
Although what constitutes being high on any of these dimensions remains somewhat
arbitrary, the higher one is on all three dimensions, the higher the probability that
one would be able to exert opinion leadership. To begin, it is useful to elucidate each
of the constructs in greater detail.
Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 178–196 © 2011 International Communication Association
179
Identifying Influence
F. J. Boster et al.
Connectivity
The results of Travers and Milgram’s (1969) small-world experiment indicate that a
handful of well-connected people serve to connect others who are far removed both
in physical and social distance. As many subsequent studies reinforce (cf., Burt, 2004;
Kochen, 1989), these highly influential people are recognized by others and are called
upon when information needs to be transmitted or people need to be contacted.
Owing to their unusually high desire and ability to meet new people, those highly
connected know many people. Notably, they are capable of bridging groups, bringing
people and information together in ways that less connected persons could not. The
more groups in which persons are involved, the greater the chance that they will be
exposed to new information and the greater the chance the persons with whom they
share that information will not have heard it before. These attributes make highly
connected network members critical links in the spread of information, more critical
than the average person.
The ability to bridge multiple groups results from the formation of weak-tie
relationships (Granovetter, 1973). Some weak-tie relationships serve as bridges, a
network connection that is the only connection between two groups. The process of
serving as weak-tie bridges between groups confers great potential for influence, as
people occupying these roles facilitate the transmission of information from one social
group to another. When two people are connected only weakly, they are exposed
to different groups, increasing the chance of unique information being available
to either or both. It is these types of people—those who have a disproportionate
number of weak-tie relationships—who are pivotal in transmitting information.
Indeed, Burt (2004) provides evidence that these ‘‘between-group brokers’’ are more
actively involved in the dissemination of new ideas. Furthermore, the rate at which
that information travels is increased, because it is less likely that the person told will
have heard it previously (Granovetter, 1973).
It is expected that preferences, or tolerance, for weak-tie relationships vary across
people. Some may purposely limit their social circles, preferring to be close friends
with a few people rather than casual friends with many. The highly connected are
different; they are not troubled by the social parameters inherent in casual interaction.
With varying success, there have been a number of attempts to locate the wellconnected and use them in information campaigns (Celentano et al., 2000; Earp
et al., 2002; Kelly et al., 1992; Miller et al., 1998; Soumerai et al., 1998). Historically,
the difficulty in these efforts is accurate and efficient identification of influence. One
of the more successful attempts was the Kelly et al. use of popular group members
to promote condom use in gay communities in three medium-sized Southern cities.
The intervention resulted in a sizable reduction in high-risk sexual behavior and an
increase in condom use in all three cities.
Persuasiveness
Research documents a number of overt behavioral and personality traits that are characteristic of effective persuasiveness. Those with a high need for cognition generate
180
Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 178–196 © 2011 International Communication Association
F. J. Boster et al.
Identifying Influence
more arguments and more valid arguments than those low on need for cognition
and tend to be viewed as more competent at persuasion (Shestowsky, Wegener,
& Fabrigar, 1998). Those with high internal control have been found to induce
substantially more attitude change than those with high external control (Phares,
1965). Understanding others well, or effective audience analysis, can improve one’s
suasory effectiveness, particularly if it leads to understanding the reason(s) targets
hold their opinion (Hullett & Boster, 2001; Katz, 1960; Lapinski & Boster, 2001).
Perhaps as, or more, important is a fundamental characteristic. Persuasive people
engage frequently in influence attempts, often advancing their opinions. They are
able to conceive and articulate their positions on issues from different perspectives
and are effective at enabling others to view favorably their side of the issue. It would
be expected that persuasive people will be reluctant to concede points easily in
an argument or shy away from controversial topics, while not being overbearing.
Persuasive people would be highly argumentative and effective debaters.
Mavens
As applied to information diffusion the term ‘‘maven’’ first arose in marketing.
Feick and Price (1987) used the term to refer to subject matter experts across broad
consumer categories. They are described as ‘‘individuals who have information about
many kinds of products, places to shop, and other facets of markets, and initiate
discussions with consumers and respond to requests from consumers for market
information’’ (p. 85). Mavens are deeply involved in markets and know information
about products in a wide range of categories, even in categories of products they
themselves do not use. Although ‘‘mavenness’’ is viewed here as a quantitative,
continuous variable, the term maven will be retained so as to fit with the previous
literature.
Mavens are distinguishable conceptually from opinion leaders (Lazarsfeld, 1944)
and early adopters. Although the concepts of opinion leaders and early adopters vary
somewhat in technical discourse, generally it is believed that their involvement in
markets is within a specific product category with which they have direct experience.
In contrast, mavens have general market knowledge. In the sense that mavens have
information across a wide range of categories, the concept becomes more similar
to the generalized opinion leader construct proposed by those who have found that
some people are opinion leaders in multiple areas at a rate higher than chance (King
& Summers, 1970; Marcus & Bauer, 1964).
Feick and Price (1987) found mavens to be more aware of new products across
categories and to have higher media usage than nonmavens. Brand criteria, such as
quality, are considered by mavens to be more important than store criteria or emotional brand criteria (Williams & Slama, 1995). Mavens also like to discuss the deals
they get and frequently volunteer advice to others regarding purchasing decisions.
They find the research of purchasing decisions exciting and often view marketplace
involvement as a route to self-expression. Mavens are typically recognized by others
as such and are sought after by others for information (Feick & Price, 1987).
Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 178–196 © 2011 International Communication Association
181
Identifying Influence
F. J. Boster et al.
Although locating mavens in areas other than consumer behavior has not been
investigated extensively, there is some evidence that such people exist. Belch, Krentler,
and Willis-Flurry (2005) proposed the existence of teen Internet mavens, those who
were relied on by their families to provide information from the Internet. They found
that an adapted version of the maven scale correlated highly with Internet use and
degree of influence in family decision making. It is plausible that such people exist
in other areas as well (e.g., health behavior) and play a pivotal role in information
dissemination, akin to market mavens and Internet mavens.
In the program of research presented in this article, the concept of a maven is
extended from consumer markets to health behavior. Health behavior was chosen
because it parallels consumer markets in terms of breadth; exercise, for example,
is too specific (a parallel to, say, a consumer expert in electronics). Broader topics,
however, also presented challenges—using knowledge of socially conscious behavior,
for example, is nebulous. Health mavens would have knowledge of a broad range of
health behavior and health topics, would enjoy volunteering health information to
others, and would be recognized as health experts by others. A health maven would
be asked health-related questions often and would serve as an information resource
for others.
Study 1
Study 1 was designed to assess both the content validity of three sets of self-report
items that were developed to identify connectivity, persuasiveness, and health mavens.
Moreover, additional constructs were measured to examine both the convergent and
divergent construct validity of each of the three focal scales.
It is difficult to conceive of someone with numerous weak-tie relationships who
is reticent to communicate with other people; therefore, it is expected that the
connectivity construct will correlate negatively and substantially with social anxiety.
To a lesser extent, the same point can be made for persuasiveness. However, there
is no reason to expect health mavens to have more or less social anxiety than those
who lack domain expertise. Consequently, the correlation between the health maven
index and social anxiety is expected to approximate zero.
It would be difficult to imagine a highly persuasive person who was loathe to
engage in arguments, indeed, because it would be difficult to imagine a persuasive
person who did not embrace opportunities to engage in arguments with others, it
is therefore hypothesized that the persuasiveness index will correlate positively and
amply with argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Furthermore, there is no
theoretical reason to expect argumentativeness to correlate substantially with the
connectivity or health maven constructs.
Finally, the health maven index is hypothesized to correlate positively and substantially with value-relevant involvement (Johnson & Eagly, 1989). It is anticipated
that the well connected and highly persuasive will be either high or low in valuerelevant involvement in approximately equivalent proportions; thus, there is no
182
Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 178–196 © 2011 International Communication Association
F. J. Boster et al.
Identifying Influence
reason to expect a substantial correlation between either of these constructs and
value-relevant involvement.
To summarize, evidence consistent with a hypothesis of content validity would
emerge if the indicators constructed to measure each of the three focal constructs fit the
predicted three-dimensional factor solution. Evidence consistent with the construct
validity hypotheses would emerge if scores on the connectivity measure (and to a
lesser extent with the persuasiveness measure) correlated negatively and substantially
with social anxiety but approximately zero with argumentativeness and valuerelevant involvement; scores on the persuasiveness measure correlated positively
and substantially with argumentativeness but approximately zero with value-relevant
involvement; and if scores on the health maven measure correlated positively and
substantially with value-relevant involvement but approximately zero with social
anxiety and argumentativeness. A study was designed to assess these predictions.
Method
Subjects
The sample was composed of 189 students enrolled in undergraduate communication
classes at a large university in the Midwestern United States. Females composed 66%
of the sample. The mean age was 20.20 (SD = 2.81). Subjects received course credit
for their participation.
Procedure
Participation was solicited, and the questionnaire was administered, in classroom
settings. Subjects were instructed that participation would involve completing items
measuring general communication behavior and traits. Questions from subjects were
solicited, and after they were answered, the questionnaire was administered to those
who agreed to participate. Completing the questionnaire took approximately 20
minutes after which subjects were dismissed.
Instrumentation
The questionnaire was composed of four items designed to identify connectivity, four
items designed to identify persuasiveness, and four items designed to identify health
mavens. Subjects also completed Leary’s (1983) social anxiousness scale, Infante and
Rancer’s (1982) argumentativeness scale, and Cho and Boster’s (2005) value-relevant
involvement scale. Items were phrased as statements with 8-point Likert response
scales, ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. There is no reason for expecting
the lack of a midpoint on the 8-point response scale to affect substantially tests of
the dimensionality of the focal measures or tests of their construct validity. Notably,
a response scale midpoint is not pivotal to any of the hypotheses.
Results
Measurement models
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Hunter & Hamilton, 1992) was performed
to test the fit of the model. A centroid algorithm was employed to estimate factor
Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 178–196 © 2011 International Communication Association
183
Identifying Influence
F. J. Boster et al.
loadings, and both internal consistency and parallelism analyses were conducted to
test the fit of the model (Anderson, Gerbing, & Hunter, 1987; Hunter & Gerbing,
1982). Specifically, the internal consistency theorem (rij = riT rjT , where i and j
are alternative indicators of the same latent variable, T) was used to generate
predicted correlations between all items that were specified as alternative indicators
of the same latent variable, and the parallelism theorem (rij = riT rjU rTU , where i
is an indicator of a latent variable, T, and j is an indicator of a latent trait, U)
was used to generate predicted correlations between all items that were indicators
of different latent variables. Each predicted correlation (P) was then compared
with its respective observed correlation (O) and the errors or residuals (i.e., the
difference between the observed and predicted correlations, O–P) were inspected.
The adequacy of…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment