Consumer's doppelganger: A role model perspective on intentional consumer mimicry

Abstract

This paper focuses on the consumer's doppelganger effect, the inclination of consumers to intentionally mimic other individuals' consumption behaviors. Taking a role model perspective, we look at the inclination of Israeli teenage girls to resonate with role models with whom they have unidirectional (study 1; N = 152) and bidirectional (study 2; N = 343) relationships. The findings demonstrate that consumers' doppelgangers have a strong inclination to intentionally emulate other individuals' consumption behavior when they perceive them as consumer role models, an assessment that is rooted in their view of these individuals as relevant. The contributions of this research relate to the study of mimicry, role modeling, and family consumption.
Copyright

Full text

Consumer’s doppelganger: A role model perspective on intentional
consumer mimicry
AYALLA RUVIO
1
*, YOSSI GAVISH
2
and AVIV SHOHAM
3
1
Fox School of Business, Temple University, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6083, USA
2
The Faculty of Business Administration, Ono Academic College, Israel
3
Graduate School of Management, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel
ABSTRACT
This paper focuses on the consumer’s doppelganger effect, the inclination of consumers to intentionally mimic other individuals’consump-
tion behaviors. Taking a role model perspective, we look at the inclination of Israeli teenage girls to resonate with role models with whom
they have unidirectional (study 1; N= 152) and bidirectional (study 2; N= 343) relationships. The findings demonstrate that consumers’
doppelgangers have a strong inclination to intentionally emulate other individuals’consumption behavior when they perceive them as
consumer role models, an assessment that is rooted in their view of these individuals as relevant. The contributions of this research relate
to the study of mimicry, role modeling, and family consumption.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
The consumer literature established long ago that individuals
monitor other people’s consumption behavior and copy it. In
fact, many well-documented consumption phenomena are
implicitly based on the assumption that consumers mimic
other consumers’behaviors. For example, opinion seekers
copy the consumption behavior of opinion leaders (Flynn
et al., 1996; Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006; Stokburger-
Sauer and Hoyer, 2009), and teenagers mirror their role
models’choice preferences (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997).
However, despite this rich literature, the issue of consumers’
intentional mimicry remains unaddressed. Thus, this paper
focuses on people’s tendency to intentionally mimic other
consumers’behavior and regard this behavior as the consumer’s
doppelganger effect (CDE).
The studies on consumer mimicry highlight its important
role in consumers’behavior by affecting individuals’con-
sumption and product preferences (Johnston, 2002; Tanner
et al., 2008). Nevertheless, these studies have focused on
unconscious mimicry and perceived mimicry as an automatic,
unaware response to other people’s behavior. The examples
cited earlier suggest that when it comes to consumption behav-
ior, individuals may intentionally choose to resonate with
other people. Furthermore, they intentionally choose those
individuals with whom they want to resonate. We term this
intentional inclination of theindividual to mimic other people’s
consumption behavior the CDE. Using a role model perspec-
tive, we propose that in order for an individual to emulate the
consumption behavior of another individual, he or she must
perceive these individuals as consumption role models. As
such, our study complements previous studies on mimicry as
well as extends our knowledge about consumer role models
by integrating these two bodies of literature in an attempt to
explain the phenomenon of the consumer’s doppelganger.
Both the research on automatic mimicry (Chartrand and
Bargh, 1999) and the study of role models (Bandura, 1986;
Lockwood and Kunda, 1997) suggest that there are two
possible types of mimicry: unidirectional and bidirectional.
The former refers to situations where the mimicker has no
direct relationship with his or her role model, such as in
the case of mimicking a celebrity. In the latter situation, the
mimicker has a direct, interactive relationship with his or
her role model, such as in the case of a family member.
Accordingly, the first study looks at the unidirectional CDE
among teenage girls who want their consumption behaviors
to resonate with those of a celebrity, a person with whom
they do not have any interaction (Lockwood and Kunda,
1997). The second study explores the bidirectional CDE
within the dyadic relationships of adolescent girls and their
mothers. This study explores a situation in which the consu-
mers do interact directly with one another, focusing on the
tendency of the daughter to mimic her mother as well as
the tendency of the mother to mimic her daughter. Next,
we provide an overview of the concepts of the consumer’s
doppelganger and consumer role models.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
The consumer’s doppelganger effect
Research has established the human tendency to mimic
various aspects of the behavior of others with whom one
interacts (Chartrand and Bargh, 1999; Tanner et al., 2008).
Neuroscientific studies attribute mimicry to the activation of
mirror neurons that take part in perceptional and behavioral
processes (Iacoboni et al., 1999), which leads to mimicry of
postures (Chartrand and Bargh, 1999), emotions (Hatfield,
et al., 1994), and even consumption behavior (Tanner et al.,
2008). Nevertheless, these studies view mimicry as an auto-
matic behavior that occurs outside the individual’s awareness.
However, when it comes to mimicking consumption beha-
viors, mimicry is often an intentional behavior, one of which
*Correspondence to: Ayalla Ruvio, Fox School of Business, Temple
University, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6083, USA.
E-mail: aruvio@temple.edu
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour,J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1415

the individual is fully aware. It is motivated by the desire to
look like or behave like other consumers and involves a series
of actions and decisions designed to achieve this goal. In the
case of the CDE, the mimicking consumer needs to determine
who to mimic, what product or consumption behavior to copy,
the extent to which the mimicking should take place, and for
how long. Thus, this is not a spontaneous reaction to stimula-
tion as in automatic mimicking, but rather a planned behavior
designed to achieve the consumer’sgoals.
The consumer behavior literature offers us ample examples
of intentional consumer mimicry. Models of the diffusion of
innovations demonstrated the transition of new products from
innovators to imitators (Rogers, 2003). Opinion leader/opinion
seeker studies showed that opinion seekers will search for
guidance on specific products or product categories from
individuals whom they consider experts. Opinion leaders’
guidance often causes opinion seekers to imitate the consump-
tion behavior they admire or to which they aspire (Bertrandias
and Goldsmith, 2006). Further evidence regarding the CDE
arises from studies on subculture consumption (Schouten and
McAlexander, 1995). These subcultures encourage members
and future members to refine their self-presentation via
conformity and imitation of high-status members of the
relevant subculture. Specifically, they need to resonate with
other members of the subculture to be accepted as a member.
Although these studies do not address the issue of
mimicry directly, they imply that the mimicked individual
has some desirable trait or attribute that the mimicking
consumer is lacking. In an attempt to obtain this missing
attribute, consumers will constantly monitor their environ-
ment in order to target other consumers who possess it.
One might argue that these targeted consumers serve as role
models, as will be discussed in the next section.
Role models
Mimicry is a basic form of learning. According to social
learning theory (Bandura, 1977), individuals mimic or model
other people’s behaviors, attitudes, values, and skills while
modifying their own behaviors accordingly. This process of
learning involves recurring learning experiences in different
social contexts as the individual internalizes socially accept-
able behaviors (Bandura, 1977). Through those learning
experiences, the individual encounters a variety of actors in
his or her social environment (King and Multon, 1996), all
of whom have the potential to influence the individual’s
behavior. Individuals will choose to rely on cues from some
of these actors and to model their behavior as they decide
how to behave, thereby transforming them into role models.
A role model can be anyone with whom the individual comes
into contact, either directly or indirectly, who potentially can
affect his or her decisions or behaviors (Bandura, 1986).
Previous studies have demonstrated that people imitate the
behaviors of direct role models (Figure 2), such as family
members, friends, and colleagues (Keillor et al., 1996), as
well as indirect role models (Figure 1), such as television and
movie stars, athletes, and other celebrities (Lockwood and
Kunda, 1997; Clark et al.,2001)withwhomtheyhaveavicar-
ious relationship. However, these studies suggest that the effect
of the former is stronger than that of the latter (King and
Multon, 1996; Martin and Bush, 2000).
Consumer behavior research has used social learning
theory to ascertain the importance of modeling behavior in
the consumption environment (Martin and Bush, 2000; Clark
et al., 2001). Undoubtedly, the dominant stream of studies in
this area has been the study of consumers’socialization and,
more recently, the study of intergenerational influence
(Moore et al., 2002), which focuses mainly on the socializa-
tion process of children and adolescents. Although socializa-
tion is a lifetime process (Moore and Moschis, 1981;
Ekstrom, 2007, 2010), much of the learning and modeling
behaviors occur during this period (Moschis, 1985). The
study of consumer modeling behaviors among adolescents
shows that they affect many key consumer behaviors includ-
ing marketplace perception (Moore et al., 2002), brand prefer-
ences (Keillor et al., 1996), and purchasing intentions (Bush
et al., 2004). However, these studies did not address the issue
of modeling behavior directly and only assumed that teenagers
learn from their significant others (e.g., parents, siblings, tea-
chers, celebrities) by observing and emulating their behaviors.
Only a handful of studies have explored the effect role
models (direct and vicarious) have on individuals’consumer
behaviors. Like the research on consumer socialization, most
of these studies were conducted on adolescents. Martin and
Bush (2000) reported that both parents (direct role models)
and celebrities (vicarious role models) have influenced
teenagers to switch or alter their brand choices. In addition,
Clark et al. (2001) found that teachers and athlete role
models affected adolescents’market knowledge, whereas
athletes and fathers helped shape perceptions about material-
ism among adolescents. In another study, Bush et al. (2004)
focused on the effect of sports celebrities on adolescents’
consumption behavior, determining that the former have a
positive influence on teenagers’favorable word-of-mouth
recommendations and brand loyalty. Finally, in her model
of consumers’purchasing decisions, Chan (2008) explicitly
indicated that imitation mediates the effect of role models
(direct and indirect) on the purchasing decisions of teenagers.
On the basis of this literature, we hypothesize the following:
H1: Perceiving someone as a consumer role model will be
positively associated with consumer’s doppelganger.
**p < .01
.33**
.33**
.24** .70**
Perceived
expertise of
role model
Consumers’
doppelganger
Perception of
being a role
model
Fashion
consciousness
Older
cognitive age
Figure 1. Structural model of study 1—indirect role model.
Consumer’s doppelganger 61
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb

The literature on role models suggests that individuals
will model other people’s behavior providing that they
perceive them as relevant (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997).
Relevancy is determined by the integration of several factors
including resemblance, domain of interest, and the role
model’s level of expertise. However, to the best of our
knowledge, research on consumer role models has never
addressed the issue of relevancy explicitly.
Resemblance
Individuals tend to model and imitate others who resemble
them in age, race, gender, or personality (Tesser, 1986). This
perceived similarity creates psychological closeness (Tesser,
1986), which emerges from similarities in physical proximity,
characteristics, family relationships, place of origin, and so on
(Lockwood and Kunda, 1997). This notion might be the
underlying explanation for some of the findings on the sources
of role models for adolescents. Prior research has demonstrated
that girls will be more likely to choose their mothers over their
fathers as role models (Clark et al., 2001). Bidirectional role
models who share characteristics such as physical proximity
and family ties have a stronger influence on adolescents’
consumption than unidirectional, vicarious role models
(Martin and Bush, 2000).
However, recent research on the effect of individuals’age
on their consumption behavior suggests that it is the consu-
mer’s cognitive perception of age that is relevant to his or her
behavior (Chan, 2008). Cognitive age refers to how old or
young individuals perceive themselves to be (Barak and
Schiffman, 1981), and studies have shown that it plays an
important role in predicting consumer behaviors (Chan, 2008;
Stephens, 1991). According to Mathur and Moschis (2005),
“youthfulness”(feeling younger than one’s actual age) among
women is positively associated with an interest in fashion and
with entertainment and cultural activities. More relevant to
our purpose are the findings of Chang (2008) who reports
that ads have a stronger effect on teenagers if they see a strong
congruency between the model’s perceived age and their
cognitive age. Thus, cognitive age may be a proxy for similar-
ity. Our hypothesis posits the following:
H2: Similarity between one’s cognitive age and the role
model’s age will be positively associated with perceiving
the latter individual as a consumer role model.
Domain of interest
Individuals seek information and guidance in areas that
interest them (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997). In the case of
the CDE, the domain of interest is consumption, which
means that individuals who are interested in fashion, name
brands, or any other consumption related issues are more
likely to ask for guidance from other people who share the
same domain of interest. In this regard, research has shown
that ads are more effective in influencing the individual’s
attitudes and purchasing intentions if that individual is
interested in the advertised domain (Lafferty and Goldsmith,
1999). In addition, studies on opinion leaders stress that their
influence on other consumers’behaviors is domain specific
(Stokburger-Sauer and Hoyer, 2009).
Research also shows that teens have a strong interest in
brands and fashion (Chaplin and John, 2005). During this
period of their lives, they are struggling to build their own,
independent identity (Erikson, 1980). This is also the time
when adolescents develop a greater understanding of the
self-defining role of brands and fashion for the outside world
(Chaplin and John, 2005). They become highly conscious of
fashion trends and their impact on their appearance, which
pushes them to seek out role models who will guide their
new identity formation via different consumption behaviors
(Ward, 1974). Research has shown that as teenagers develop
their consumer skills, consumer role models serve as sources
of information about fashion (Clark et al., 2001). Therefore,
we explore the relationship between fashion consciousness
as a domain of interest and the perception of a celebrity as
consumer role models, positing the following:
H3: Fashion consciousness will be positively related to
perceiving a celebrity as a consumer role model.
Finally, research shows that people will model outstand-
ing others who excel in one’s domain of interest (Lockwood
and Kunda, 1997). Previous findings highlight the importance
of celebrities such as athletes and movie stars in affecting
adolescents’and adults’consumption. Their influence is attrib-
uted to their excellence in a specific domain, which makes
them experts in the eyes of their target audience. Studies on
advertising underline the importance of the relevancy of the
celebrity to the product. According to these studies, the per-
ceived expertise of the celebrity endorsers must be congruent
with or match the product they are advertising in order for
them to be effective and influence the consumers’purchase
intentions and behaviors (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999).
However, other knowledgeable individuals can also be seen
as experts and as potential role models. In this regard, the
research on fashion opinion leaders and market mavens high-
lights the importance of expertise and unique knowledge in
the definition of both phenomena (e.g., Stokburger-Sauer and
Hoyer, 2009). In order for consumers to turn to other consu-
mers for advice about the market or a product, they must
perceive them as experts. Thus,
H4: The perceived level of the role model’s expertise will
be positively associated with the perception of that person
as a consumer role model.
In summary, the CDE reflects the tendency to intention-
ally mimic other consumers’behavior. This paper suggests
that intentional mimicry takes place when the mimicked
individual is considered a consumer role model and is relevant
to the individual’s identity. In other words, the consumer’srole
model must be similar to the mimicking consumer, share the
same domain of interest, and be perceived as an expert in that
domain. The next two studies look at the phenomenon of the
consumer’s doppelganger among teenage girls. The first
study explores the unidirectional CDE through a case where
teenage girls intentionally mimic a person outside their
dyadic relationships. The second study looks at the bidirec-
tional CDE. This study focuses on the tendency of teenage
girls and their mothers to imitate one another’sconsumer
behavior.
62 A. Ruvio et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb

STUDY 1
The purpose of study 1 is to test intentional, unidirectional
CDE (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997). This study explores
consumers’intentional resonation with other consumers,
with whom they are involved in a manner other than a dyadic
relationship. We posit that individuals will tend to doppel-
gang other people they consider a relevant consumer role
model (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997). Study 1 tests cognitive
age, fashion consciousness, and perceived expertise as indi-
cators of relevancy and celebrities as role models.
Method
Sample
We collected data from a convenience sample of 152 high school
girls between the ages of 15 and 17 (mean = 15.92; std. = 0.47),
residing in a large metropolitan area in Israel. At this stage of late
adolescence, teenagers have relatively well-developed self-
concepts that incorporate awareness of brands and fashion
as public self-representation (Chaplin and John, 2005).
Measures
All measures in this study use items scored on five-point
Likert scales.
The consumer’s doppelganger scale measures the inclination
of a consumer to resonate with other consumers. It uses the four-
item scale of Viswanathan et al. (2000) that measures intergen-
erational communication preferences for brands, stores, and
styles. In this study, participants indicate to what extent they
intentionally imitate the buying behaviors of a celebrity they
name as someone they admire, including buying the same
brands as the other person purchases, shopping in the same
stores,sharingthesamestyleinfashion,anddressingupinthe
same colors. The reliability (Cronbach’sa)ofthisscaleis0.96.
Perception of the celebrity as a role model. The respondents
named a celebrity with whom they were familiar. All of them
selected an older female celebrity. About 30% of the girls
chose the same celebrity, a 24-year-old model. Next, the
participants indicated to what extent this celebrity served as
a role model for them, with specific reference to clothing
and cosmetics. An adapted version of Rich’s (1997) five-item
scale, which measured the degree to which a sales manager’s
behavior is perceived as being consistent with the values
espoused by the manager, was used as the measurement tool.
Other studies have also used this scale to measure role
modeling among adolescents (e.g., Martin and Bush, 2000;
Bush et al., 2004). We omitted the fourth item in this scale,
“exhibits the kind of work ethic and behavior that I try to
imitate,”because it was irrelevant to the current study. The
reliability of the remaining four items is 0.91.
Role model’s perceived expertise refers to the role model’s
perceived skill or knowledge in a specific product context.
Referring to the same celebrity they chose in the previous
question, respondents assessed the celebrity’s expertise in
fashion and cosmetics using Donney and Cannon’s (1997)
three-item scale. Originally, this scale measured the consu-
mer’s trust in a salesperson. We converted it to measure the
role model’s perceived expertise. The reliability of this scale
is 0.93 for cosmetics and 0.95 for fashion.
Cognitive age refers to the subjective perception of one’s
age. According to this concept, individuals can feel older or
younger than their chronological age (Barak and Schiffman,
1981). Therefore, in this study, the cognitive age scale
reflects the sense of maturity and adulthood a young person
might feel. We measured cognitive age using a modified
version of Guiot’s (2001) three-item scale that was originally
designed to measure a sense of youthfulness. In the current
study, the reliability among the teenage girls is 0.81.
The fashion consciousness six-item scale (Lumpkin and
Darden, 1982) measures the importance that one accords to
being fashionable, particularly in terms of dressing. In the
current study, the reliability is 0.86.
The modified scales are available from the corresponding
author.
Analysis
The research hypotheses were initially tested with a simple
correlation analysis. Then, the data were subjected to a
structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis using AMOS19.
Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach,
the measurement model and then the structural model were
tested in both studies. The measurement model examines the
distinctiveness of the measures, and the structural model
assesses the nomologic relationships between the latent
variables (Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994).
Findings
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correla-
tion coefficients of the constructs in study 1. As is evident,
the teenage girls have relatively moderate levels of fashion
consciousness (M= 3.24) and moderate assessments of the
expertise level of their celebrity with regard to fashion
(M= 3.34). In addition, their sense of being older than their
chronological age, their perception of the selected celebrity
as a role model, and their perceived doppelganger relationship
to their role model were slightly low (M=2.86,M= 2.60, and
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, range, and correlation coefficients of study 1
Means SD 1 2 3 4
1. Older cognitive age 2.86 1.07 (0.70)
2. Fashion consciousness 3.24 1.01 0.36 (0.69)
3. Role model’s perceived expertise 3.34 1.40 0.32 0.51 (0.88)
4. Role model’sinfluence 2.60 1.29 0.48 0.59 0.59 (0.74)
5. Consumer’s doppelganger 2.38 1.42 0.39 0.41 0.52 0.68 (0.86)
All correlations are significant at the p<0.01 level. Average variance extracted is in parenthesis.
Consumer’s doppelganger 63
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb

M= 2.38, respectively). Next, we subjected the data to SEM
analysis and tested the measurement and the structural model.
Measurement model. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFA
results of the measurement model indicate that the model had
an acceptable fit with the data: w
2
= 190.2 (df = 109; p<0.001);
normed-w
2
= 1.74; CFI and NNFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.93, RMSEA =
0.07, and SRMR =.04. In addition, factor loadings were signif-
icant (p<0.01) and ranged from 0.73 to 0.91. Therefore, we
concluded that these measures were satisfactory for meeting
the requirements for convergent validity. Finally, moderate
correlations between the constructs ranged from 0.32 (for the
correlation between perceiving the celebrity as an expert and
older cognitive age) to 0.52 (for the correlation between perceiv-
ing the celebrity as an expert and consumer doppelganger),
suggesting that discriminant validity was achieved.
Structural model. The structural model tested the substantive
relationships between the constructs. The results of the structural
model, presented in Figure 1, indicate that the hypothesized
model fits the data well, with w
2
(df ) = 200.7 (112) p<0.001;
NNFI and CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, and SRMR = .04.
H1 postulated that the consumer’s doppelganger would be
positively associated with perceiving someone as a consumer
role model. As such, a significant ( p<0.01) relationship was
found between teenagers’consumer’s doppelganger and per-
ceiving their celebrity as a role model (b= 0.70, 49%
explained variance). According to hypotheses H2–H4, indi-
viduals will perceive someone as a consumer role model if
they see themselves as similar to this person, as measured
by cognitive age, sharing the same interest in fashion, and
perceiving him or her as an expert in this domain. These
hypotheses were fully supported. Teenagers’perceptions of
their celebrity as a role model were positively and signifi-
cantly ( p<0.01) related to cognitive age (g= 0.33), fashion
consciousness (g= 0.24), and the role model’s perceived
expertise (g= 0.33). The total explained variance of
perceiving the celebrity as a consumer role model was 54%.
Common method bias
As in every single source, self-reported research study, common
method bias (CMB) is a potential concern. To test for the pres-
ence of CMB, we used Harman’s one-factor test and a confir-
matory factor analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results
revealed the existence of five distinct factors reflecting the re-
search constructs, with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, rather than
a single factor, which accounted for almost 76% of the total var-
iance. Factor loadings ranged from 0.59 to 0.89. The first factor
accounted for only 20% of the variance. Thus, no general factor
was apparent. Furthermore, we subjected the data to an SEM
confirmatory factor analysis, which showed that the single-
factor model did not fit the data well, with w
2
= 1167.6; df = 120;
NFI = 0.50; CFI = 0.52; NNFI = 0.46; RMSEA = 0.25. Although
these results do not preclude the possibility of CMB, they do
suggest that CMB is not of great concern and thus is unlikely
to confound our interpretations.
Discussion
As noted earlier, most of the research on consumer
mimicry has focused on automatic, unconscious mimicking
(e.g., Chartrand and Bargh, 1999; Tanner et al., 2008). This
study shows that individuals (in this case, teenage girls)
intentionally mimic other individuals whom they consider
to be role models, who are relevant to them. It is not merely
the mimicking act that is conscious. The findings clearly
indicate that the subjects intentionally choose the figure they
want to emulate and report their inclination to mimic their
consumption behavior. Additionally, this study highlights
the importance of relevancy to the consumer behavior realm.
Similarities between the role model and the consumer, shared
interests, and the role model’s expertise in the consumption
domain will increase his or her influence on the modeling
consumer. Finally, previous research on consumer modeling
indicates that role models affect other consumers’prefer-
ences and buying intentions (e.g., Ward, 1974; Bush et al.,
2004). This study demonstrates that consumers have the
tendency to actually emulate a role model’s consumption
behaviors. We will discuss the implications of these findings
in the discussion section.
STUDY 2
The aim of study 2 is to test whether CDE exerts a bidirec-
tional influence. Thus, we explore intentional mimicry within
explicit dyadic relationships by focusing on the tendency of
teenage girls to emulate their mothers’consumption behavior
as well as the tendency of the mothers to mimic their
daughters. To the best of our knowledge, this dyadic model
is the first one to test the bidirectional influence of children
and adults on the purchase of expressive products (clothes
and cosmetics) that both parties consume for personal use.
Although studies have looked at the influence of children
on adults (e.g., Thomson et al., 2007), these studies focused
mainly on products that the family consumes as a unit
(e.g., cars, soup; Kim and Lee, 1997) or on products that
were important to the child (e.g., bicycles, computers;
Foxman et al., 1989).
Given the focus on a bidirectional CDE, we need to make
some adjustments to the study’s hypotheses. The literature on
consumer socialization emphasizes that teenagers observe
their parents’behaviors and preferences and model them
(Ward, 1974; Moschis, 1985; Ekstrom, 2007, 2010). In other
words, the core of relevancy shifts from an abstract percep-
tion of relevancy that the mimicker has (as in unidirectional
role modeling) to explicit behaviors that the mimicked
person performs. Thus, in addition to the original hypothe-
ses, this study argues that the mother’s interest in fashion
and her perceived younger cognitive age will be positively
associated with her being perceived by her daughter as a
role model. Likewise, in order for the daughter to be a role
model for the mother in the consumption domain, she needs
to show an interest in fashion and exhibit an older cognitive
age. We make no adjustments to the hypothesis about the
role model’s perceived expertise.
H2a: A mother’s younger cognitive age will be positively
related to her being perceivedby her daughter as a consumer
role model.
64 A. Ruvio et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb

H2b: A daughter’s older cognitive age will be positively
related to her being perceived by her mother as a consumer
role model.
H3a: A high level of fashion consciousness on the part of
the mother will be positively related to the perception of
her daughter of her as a consumer role model.
H3b: A high level of fashion consciousness on the part of
the daughter will be positively related to the perception of
her mother of her as a consumer role model.
Method
Sample
We used a sample of 343 dyads of mothers (age range: 33–58)
and their adolescent daughters (age range: 15–18). We distrib-
uted 560 self-report questionnaires to adolescent daughters in
five metropolitan high schools in Israel and received 359 back,
for a 64% response rate. The girls took their questionnaires as
well as their mothers’questionnaires home and brought them
back to school for collection. Sixteen questionnaires were
disqualified because of missing information that prevented a
dyadic analysis. Thus, the final sample includes 343 dyads of
mothers and their adolescent daughters (about 61% response
rate) with an average age of 16.41 (SD = 0.88) for the
daughters and 44.02 (5.17) for the mothers.
Measures and procedure
In this study, we use the same measures as in study 1. Both
the mothers and their daughters report their cognitive age,
their fashion consciousness, their perceived expertise in
clothing and cosmetics, the extent to which they perceive
their daughters/ mothers as consumer role models, and their
tendency to emulate their consumption behavior (the CDE).
As in study 1, we subjected our data to SEM analysis and
tested both the measurement model and the structural model.
This model tests the consumer’s doppelganger as a latent
construct composed of two indicators—one from the mother
and one from the daughter. In other words, we calculated an
overall score of consumer doppelganger for the mother and
for the daughter separately. Next, we created a latent con-
struct in the SEM model consisting of these two variables,
one that represents the overall score for the mother and one
that represents the overall score for the daughter. As such,
this construct reflects the mutual tendency of both parties to
resonate with one another. We entered the perception of the
mother as a consumer role model for her daughter as well
as the perception of the daughter as a consumer role model
for her mother as predictors of the consumer’s doppelganger.
Finally, in accordance with the hypotheses, we tested the three
measures of relevancy as predictors of role model influence.
Specifically, we posited that the daughter’s older cognitive
age, her perception of her mother as an expert, and her interest
in fashion would increase the perception of the mother as a
consumer role model, and vice versa for the mother. However,
given that these are dyadic relationships, we also conducted
tests to determine whether the mother’s sense of youthfulness
and her interest in fashion would increase her perception as a
role model for her daughter, and whether the daughter’s older
cognitive age and her interest in fashion would increase her
perception as a role model for her mother.
Findings
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correla-
tion coefficients of the constructs in study 2. According to these
findings, both mothers and daughters show a similar level of
fashion consciousness (M
mothers
= 2.81 versus M
daughters
=2.98)
and consumers’doppelganger (M
mothers
=2.30 versus
M
daughters
= 2.40) with no significant differences between them.
Mothers’perceptions of their daughters as experts were
significantly higher than the daughters’perceptions of the
mothers as experts (M
mothers
= 3.08 versus M
daughters
=2.83;
t=3.93, p<0.001). However, the mothers’perceptions of
their daughters as role models were significantly lower than
the daughters’perceptions of their mothers as role models
(M
mothers
=2.67 versus M
daughters
= 3.37; t= 17.49, p<0.001).
Measurement model
The results of the measurement model of study 2 demonstrated
an acceptable fitwithw
2
=722.16 (df =225; p<0.001);
normed-w
2
= 3.2; CFI and NNFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.92,
RMSEA = 0.08, and SRMR = 0.04. In addition, significant
(p<0.01) factor loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.89. There-
fore, we concluded that these measures were satisfactory
for meeting the requirements for convergent validity.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, range, and correlation coefficients of study 2
Mean SD 12345678910
Daughters
1. Older cognitive age 2.73 0.93 (0.70)
2. Fashion consciousness 2.98 1.10 0.21 (0.71)
3. Mother’s perceived expertise 2.83 1.06 0.25 0.42 (0.75)
4. Perception of the mother as a role model 3.37 1.29 0.20 0.31 0.58 (0.74)
5. Consumer’s doppelganger 2.40 1.01 0.32 0.41 0.47 0.43 (0.68)
Mothers
6.Younger cognitive age 3.51 1.00 0.13 0.17 0.31 0.58 (0.71)
7. Fashion consciousness 2.81 1.03 0.25 0.47 0.61 0.61 0.45 (0.72)
8.Daughter’s perceived expertise 3.08 1.05 0.16 0.56 0.39 0.40 0.24 0.43 (0.71)
9. Perception of the daughter as a role model 2.67 1.10 0.14 0.50 0.23 0.39 0.24 0.40 0.53 (0.70)
10. Consumer’s doppelganger 2.30 1.02 0.32 0.41 0.47 0.43 0.32 0.59 0.49 0.58 (0.68)
All correlations higher than 0.10 are significant at the p<0.01 level.
Consumer’s doppelganger 65
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb

Correlations between the constructs ranged from 0.01 (for
the correlation between perceiving the mother as an expert
and the mother mimicking her daughter) to 0.55 (for the
correlation between perceiving the daughter as a role model
for the mother and their mutual CDE), suggesting that
discriminant validity was achieved.
Structural model
Table 3 and Figure 2 presents the results of the structural model
of study 2, showing that the hypothesized model fits the data
well, with w
2
(df ) = 775.17 (233) p=0.00; all model fits are
over 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08, and SRMR = 0.05. There are
positive and significant (p<0.01) relationships between the
perception of the mother/daughter as a role model and consu-
mer’s doppelganger. However, the mothers’perceptions of
their daughters as consumer role models are a stronger predic-
tor of their mutual CDE than the daughters’perceptions of
the mothers as consumer role models (b=0.50 vs. b=0.27,
respectively; 40% explained variance of CDE). These findings
support H1 for both mothers and daughters.
Hypotheses H2–H4 focus on the relationships between
relevancy and the perception of the mother/daughter as
consumer role model. According to the results, the daugh-
ters’perceptions of their mothers as consumer role models
were positively related to the extent to which they view their
mothers as experts in cosmetics and clothing (g= 0.35; H4
for the mothers), to the mothers’perceptions about being a
younger cognitive age (g= 0.40; H2a) and to the mothers’
level of fashion consciousness (g= 0.32; H3a). The total
explained variance of the mothers as role models for their
daughters is 50%. Surprisingly, the daughters’interest in
fashion and their older cognitive age have no significant
relationship with their mothers’influence as role models.
Daughters will be regarded as consumer role models for
their mothers if the mothers see them as experts in fashion
(g= 0.35; H4 for the daughters) and if they both share an
interest in cosmetics and clothing (g= 0.16 for the mothers;
H3, g= 0.29 for the daughters; H3b). The total explained
variance of the daughters as role models for their mothers
is 30%. Neither the cognitive age of the daughters nor the
mothers is associated with the daughters’influence on their
mothers as role models, leading to the rejection of H2 (for
the daughters) and H2b.
Discussion
The results of study 2 corroborate those of study 1. The CDE
occurs when the mimicking consumer views the mimicked
individual as a role model, providing the latter is relevant
to the former. The findings also suggest that intentional
mimicry between dyads can be asymmetric. According to
the results, mothers who see their daughters as consumer role
models will tend to doppelgang their consumption behavior.
However, this relationship between the perception of the
mother as a role model for the daughter and the tendency
of the daughter to doppelgang her mother is not as strong.
There was a significant difference between these correlations
(r
mothers
= 0.50 versus r
daughters
= 0.27; z= 3.55, p<0.001).
This finding may suggest that teenage girls prefer to mimic
others they find more relevant to them. Possible explanations
for this asymmetry will be presented in the general discussion.
These findings of the model of study 2 suggest that when
dealing with dyads, the focus of relevancy shifts from an
internal reference of relevancy (such as in a unidirectional
role model) to an external one. In unidirectional mimicry,
the role model’s relevancy rests upon the mimicker’s percep-
tion of relevancy alone, as there is no actual contact between
the mimicker and the role model. In bidirectional mimicry,
the mimicker has an opportunity to observe the role model’s
behavior. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study
that tests relevancy with regard to both unidirectional and
bidirectional role models.
Finally, this study contributes to the literature on family
consumption. As noted earlier, studies exploring the influ-
ence of children on their parents’consumption behavior
focused mainly on products that the entire family consumes
or are relevant to the child (Foxman et al., 1989; Thomson
et al., 2007). However, the findings of this study clearly
demonstrate that children affect their parents’consumption
behavior with regard to the products that the parents
themselves consume. These findings may provide initial
Table 3. Regression weights and fit measures of the structural model of study 2
From To Standardized regression weights*
Mother’s constructs
Younger cognitive age Mother as a role model for the daughter 0.40**
Fashion consciousness Mother as a role model for the daughter 0.32**
Perceived expertise Mother as a role model for the daughter 0.35**
Younger cognitive age Daughter as a role model for the mother 0.07
Fashion consciousness Daughter as a role model for the mother 0.16*
Mother as a role model for the daughter Consumer’s doppelganger 0.27**
Older cognitive age Daughter as a role model for the mother 0.04
Fashion consciousness Daughter as a role model for the mother 0.30**
Perceived expertise Daughter as a role model for the mother 0.35**
Older cognitive age Mother as a role model for the daughter 0.02
Fashion consciousness Mother as a role model for the daughter 0.02
Daughter as a role model for the mother Consumer’s doppelganger 0.50**
Fit measures w
2
(df ); p= 775.17 (233); 0.00
NFI; NNFI; CFI; RMSEA 0.95; 0.96; 0.96; 0.08
*p<0.05. **p<0.01.
66 A. Ruvio et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb

support for what Moschis (1985) calls reverse socialization
(Ekstrom, 2007).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Consumers mimic other consumers. They often do so
automatically and unintentionally (Tanner et al., 2008), but
our study demonstrated that consumers also tend to mimic
others intentionally when they perceive them as consumer
role models. By integrating two streams of research—the
study of mimicry and the literature on role modeling—we
sought insights into the phenomenon of what we termed
the CDE. Thus, this research contributes to the knowledge
about mimicry, role modeling, and family consumption.
Consumer’s doppelganger effect and the study of
mimicry
This paper provides evidence that consumers will tend to
intentionally mimic other consumers they regard as either
unidirectional or bidirectional role models (e.g., family mem-
bers, friends, teachers, and celebrities). Focusing on teenage
girls, we found that the teenage girls in study 1 demonstrated
a significantly stronger inclination to doppelgang the con-
sumption behavior of a celebrity than the girls who emulated
their mothers in the second study (0.70 in study 1 versus 0.27
in study 2; Z= 6.01, p<0.001). Although this cross-study
comparison should be interpreted with caution, this finding
is fully consistent with the stage in life when forming an
independent self-perception that is a crucial task (Erikson,
1980). During this quest for self-definition, teenagers may
see a remote celebrity as the representation of a desirable
possible self (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997; Nuttall, 2009),
enabling adolescents to experiment with alternative selves
and separate themselves from their parents. Another strong
potential source of mimicry, especially for teenagers, is their
peers. Studies show that the influence of peers peaks during
the teen years (Elliott and Leonard, 2004; Nuttall, 2009)
and that certain peers are more influential than others (e.g.,
peer group leaders). Thus, the dynamics of bidirectional
mimicry of peers may be very different in terms of its
magnitude. Future studies should explore the concept of the
consumer’s doppelganger in the context of peer groups.
Finally, this study does not examine the possible
consequences of consumer’s doppelganger inclinations. For
example, studies on automatic mimicry suggest that it serves
as a powerful communication tool (Bavelas et al., 1986).
Whereas automatic mimicry communicates to the person
being mimicked that “I show how you feel”(Bavelas et al.,
1986), intentional mimicry may communicate a different
set of messages, such as “I show who I want to be.”This
type of message associates intentional mimicry with self-
perception. We can assume that consumers will mimic other
consumers to signal membership in a desirable social group,
as well as to differentiate themselves from other, less desirable,
social groups (Lakin et al., 2008). This dual motivation
would have an effect on their product and brand choices, tastes,
and behaviors. Consequently, the consumer’s doppelganger
should be positively associated with constructs such as
brand consciousness.
* p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01
.35**
.32**
.40**
.16*
.07
-.04
.30**
.35**
Mother’s
perceived
expertise
Consumers’
doppelganger
Mother’s
fashion
consciousness
Mother’s
younger
cognitive age
Daughter’s
older
cognitive age
Daughter’s
fashion
consciousness
Daughter’s
perceived
expertise
Daughter as a
role model for
the mother
Mother as a
role model for
the daughter
.02
.02
.27**
.50**
Figure 2. Structural model of study 2—direct role model.
Consumer’s doppelganger 67
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb

Role modeling
This paper shows that consumers doppelgang those whom
they see as role models, on the basis of their relevancy.
The findings suggest that the domain of relevance is a
dynamic concept that changes in different situations. The
findings also demonstrate that it is the individual’s percep-
tion that he or she shares certain characteristics with the
role model that establishes the relevancy of a unidirectional
role model (where there is no direct interaction with the role
model). In contrast, in a dyadic relationship, it is the actual
behavior of the role model that governs this perception.
These findings extend the knowledge about relevancy,
suggesting that it is not merely the domain of relevance that
plays a part in role modeling (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997)
but also the intensity of the relevancy. These findings align
with previous studies, which report that the impact of direct
role models (Figure 2) is stronger than that of indirect models
(e.g., Clark et al., 2001). Here too, the question regarding
boundary conditions arises. It is plausible to assume that
one can be irrelevant to another person, leading to one’s
rejection as a possible role model. However, can relevancy
be manipulated to make a seemingly irrelevant person
become relevant, and consequently be modeled? Recall that
this view of the domain of relevance consists of many factors
directly related to an individual’s identity, which jointly
determine whether one will model the consumption behavior
of another individual (Tesser, 1986; Lockwood and Kunda,
1997). It may be possible to manipulate the level of perceived
relevancy using different determinates of relevancy, such as
ethnic identity, group identification, and social class, as well
as other factors that reflect the individual’sself-identity.Such
manipulation can potentially increase/decrease the perceived
relevancy of an irrelevant/relevant person and ultimately affect
his or her likelihood of being modeled. This line of research
can also help determine which factors serve as better proxies
for relevancy under different conditions.
Family consumption
We found that mothers doppelgang their adolescent daughters.
As noted, research on family consumption demonstrates that
children affect their parents’buying decisions when it comes
to products that the family consumes as a unit or are consumed
by the child (Foxman et al., 1989; Ekstrom, 2007; Thomson
et al., 2007; Mittal and Royne, 2010). However, this study
shows that children affect their parents even when it comes
to the consumption of expressive products that the parent alone
uses. This finding provides initial support for the notion of
reverse socialization (Moschis, 1985; Ekstrom, 2007, 2010)
and suggests that the impact adolescents have on their parents
is much more profound than has been credited to them. The
possibility that adults tend to emulate their children’s con-
sumption behavior should be taken into consideration in future
studies on the family dynamics of consumption behavior.
Conclusions and future challenges
Although the study demonstrates that consumers intention-
ally mimic other consumers they regard as relevant role
models, it does suffer from some limitations. For example,
we use convenience samples in these studies, which might
raise a question about the generalizability of the findings.
Nevertheless, these findings are consistent in three different
samples. In addition, these studies look only at teenage girls
between the ages of 15 and 18 and their mothers. A valid
question would be whether the findings of this paper are
restricted to this special dyadic relationship. One might argue
that mothers and daughters have a special relationship that
may not exist in other types of relationships (e.g., fathers
and sons, siblings). In addition, studies have demonstrated
that similarity is very effective for girls, as girls tend to be
strongly influenced by female role models (for a review,
see Groesz et al., 2002). For boys, however, similarity is
less effective. Thus, one might ask whether teenage boys
exhibit similar CDEs with regard to their fathers or other
male role models.
Another issue that needs to be addressed in future studies
is the extent to which the phenomenon of the consumer’s
doppelganger is different from other closely related con-
structs such as the reference group effect. Even if individuals
are influenced by others in their environment, it does not
necessarily mean that they will mimic these people. Where
does social influence end and doppelganging begin? What
are the distinct characteristics of each phenomenon and to
what extent and under what conditions do they overlap?
These questions were not addressed in this paper, but
deserve scholarly attention and investigation. Despite the
weaknesses of the present effort, we have acquired some
useful understanding of the CDE that hopefully will attract
further scholarly attention.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Dr. Ayalla Ruvio is an assistant professor of Marketing at the Fox
School of Business at Temple University; she received her PhD from
the University of Haifa in Israel and was a visiting scholar at the
University of Michigan. She is a consumer behavior researcher who
focuses on issues such as consumers’self-identity, possessions as an
extension of the self, materialism, consumers’need for uniqueness,
and cross-cultural consumer behavior. Dr. Ruvio has published her
work in refereed journals including the Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Con-
sumer Behaviour, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Leader-
ship Quarterly.
Yossi Gavish (PhD, 2009, Haifa University) is a lecturer in marketing
and economic in the Ono Academic College. His research focuses
mainly on consumer behavior (consumer socialization, Intergenera-
tional influences) and drivers of customers’reactions to service
failures.
Aviv Shoham (PhD, 1993, University of Oregon) is an associate
professor of marketing and head of the Business Administration De-
partment at the University of Haifa, Israel. He serves as a visiting pro-
fessor at the Ljubljana University, Slovenia. His research focuses on
international marketing management/strategy and international con-
sumer behavior. His research has been published in journals such as
the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Management Inter-
national Review,theJournal of International Marketing, Interna-
tional Marketing Review,theJournal of Business Research,the
Journal of Advertising Research, International Business Review,the
Journal of Applied Social Psychology,theEuropean Journal of Mar-
keting, European Journal of Management, and the Journal of Global
Marketing.
68 A. Ruvio et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb

REFERENCES
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. 1988. Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.
Bagozzi RP, Heatherton TF. 1994. A general approach to represent-
ing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-
esteem. Structural Equation Modeling 1(1): 35–67.
Bandura A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura A. 1986. Social Foundation of Thought and Action: A
Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barak B, Schiffman LG. 1981. Cognitive age: A nonchronological
age variable. Advances in Consumer Research 8: 602–606.
Bavelas JB, Black A, Lemery CR, Mullet J. 1986. I show how
you feel: motor mimicry as a communicative act. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 50: 322–329.
Bertrandias L, Goldsmith RE. 2006. Some psychological motiva-
tions for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10(1): 25–40.
Bush AJ, Craig MA, Bush VD. 2004. Sports celebrity influence on
the behavioral intentions of generation Y? JournalofAdvertising
Research 44(3): 108–118.
Chan K. 2008. Social comparison of material possessions among
adolescents. Qualitative Marketing Research: International
Journal 11(3): 316–330.
Chang C. 2008. Ad framing effects for consumption products: An
affect priming process. Psychology and Marketing 25(1): 49–59.
Chaplin LN, John DR. 2005. The development of self-brand
connections in children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer
Research 32(1): 119–129.
Chartrand TL, Bargh JA. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perception-
behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 76:893–910.
Clark W, Paul A, Martin C, Bush AJ. 2001. The effect of role
model influence on adolescents’materialism and marketplace
knowledge. Journal of Marketing 65(4): 27–36.
Donney PM, Cannon JP. 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in
buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing 61(April): 35–51.
Ekstrom KM. 2007. Parental consumer learning or ‘keeping up with
the children’.Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6: 203–217.
Ekstrom KM. 2010. Consumer socialization in families. In Marshall
D (ed.). Understanding Children as Consumers. SAGE
Publications: London.
Elliott R, Leonard C. 2004. Peer pressure and poverty: Exploring
fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of
the ‘British poor’.Journal of Consumer Behaviour 3(4): 347–359.
Erikson EH. 1980. Identity and the Life Cycle. Norton: New York.
Flynn LR, Goldsmith R, Eastman J. 1996. Opinion leaders and
opinion seekers: Two new measurement scales. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 24(2): 137–147.
Foxman ER, Tansuhaj PS, Ekstrom KM. 1989. Adolescents’influ-
ence in family purchase decisions: A socialization perspective.
Journal of Business Research 18, (March): 159–172.
Groesz LM, Levine MP, Murnen SK. 2002. The effect of experi-
mental presentation of thin media images on body satisfaction:
A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders
31:1–15.
Guiot D. 2001. Antecedents of subjective age biases among senior
women. Psychology and Marketing 18(10): 1049–1071.
Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT, Rapson RL. 1994. Emotional contagion.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Iacoboni M, Woods RP, Brass M, Bekkering H, Mazziotta JC,
Rizzolatti G. 1999. Cortical mechanisms of human imitatio.
Science 286: 2526–2528.
Johnston L. 2002. Behavioral mimicry and stigmatization. Social
Cognition 20(1): 18–34.
Keillor BD, Parker RS, Schaefer A. 1996. Influences on adolescent
brand preferences in the United States and Mexico. Journal of
Advertising Research 36 (May/June): 47–56.
Kim C, Lee H. 1997. Development of family triadic measures for
children’s purchase influence. Journal of Marketing Research
34 (August): 307–321.
King MM, Multon KD. 1996. The effects of television role models
on the career aspirations of African-American junior high school
students. Journal of Career Development 23(2): 111–125.
Lafferty BA, Goldsmith RE. 1999. Corporate credibility’s role in
consumer’s attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus
a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business
Research 44(2): 109–116.
Lakin JL, Chartrand TL, Arkin RM. 2008. I am too just like you:
Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to
social exclusion. Psychological Science 19(8): 816–822.
Lockwood P, Kunda Z. 1997. Superstars and me: Predicting the im-
pact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 73(1): 91–103.
Lumpkin JR, Darden WR. 1982. Relating television preference
viewing to shopping orientations, lifestyles, and demographics.
Journal of Advertising 11(4): 56–67.
Martin CA, Bush AJ. 2000. Do role models influence teenagers’
purchase intentions and behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing
17(5): 441–453.
Mathur A, Moschis GP. 2005. Antecedents of cognitive age: A repli-
cation and extension. Psychology and Marketing 22(12): 969–994.
Mittal B, Royne MB. 2010. Consuming as a family: Modes of
intergenerational influence on young adults. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 9(4): 239–257.
Moore ES, Moschis GP. 1981. The role of family communications in
consumer learning. Journal of Communications 31(1): 42–51.
Moore ES, Wilkie WL, Lutz RG. 2002. Passing the torch:
Intergenerational influences as a source of brand equity. Journal
of Marketing 66(2): 17–37.
Moschis GP. 1985. The role of family communication in consumer
socialization of children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer
Research 11(4): 898–913.
Nuttall P. 2009. Insiders, regulars and tourists: exploring selves and
music consumption in adolescence. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 8: 211–224.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. 2003.
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology 88: 879–903.
Rich GA. 1997. The sales manager as role model: effects on trust,
job satisfaction and performance of salespeople. Journal of
Marketing Science 25(4): 319–328.
Rogers EM. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn). Free Press: New York.
Schouten J, McAlexander J. 1995. Subcultures of consumption: An
ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research
2(1): 43–61.
Stephens N. 1991. Cognitive age: A useful concept for advertising?
Journal of Advertising 20(4): 37–47.
Stokburger-Sauer NE, Hoyer WD. 2009. Consumer advisors !revisited:
What drives those with market mavenism and opinion leadership
tendencies and why? Journal of Consumer Behaviour 8(2): 100–115.
Tanner RJ, Ferraro R, Chartrand TL, Bettman J, van Baaren R. 2008.
Of chameleons and consumption: The impact of mimicry on choice
and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research 34:754–66.
Tesser A. 1986. Some effects of self-evaluation maintenance on
cognition and action. In Sorrentino RM, Higgins ET (eds). The
Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social
Behavior. Guilford Press: New York; 435–464.
Thomson ES, Laing AW, McKee L. 2007. Family purchase decision
making: Exploring child influence behavior. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 6:182–202.
Viswanathan M, Childers TL, Moore ES. 2000. The measurement of in-
tergenerational communication and influence on consumption: Devel-
opment, validation, and cross-cultural comparison of the IGEN Scale.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(3): 406–424.
Ward S. 1974. Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Re-
search 1(2): 1–16.
Consumer’s doppelganger 69
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12:60–69 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb