111
EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG 
NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS OF 
TOURIST EXPERIENCE DRIVERS
ŽANA ČIVRE
1
 Received: March 7, 2017
TOMAŽ KOLAR
2
 Accepted: November 17, 2017
ABSTRACT: This paper addresses some central, yet neglected, motivational issues of tour-
ist experiences. Tourists’ motives for seeking uniqueness to create memorable experiences 
are addressed as significant aspects of destination decision making. Thus, the aim of this 
paper is to explore the self-related antecedents of consumers’ need for uniqueness in the 
tourism context. Results of a quantitative analysis among 192 young travelers in Slovenia 
using structural equation modeling show that their independent self-construal is positively 
related to consumers’ need for uniqueness. However, there was no relationship found to be 
significant between the interdependent self-construal and any dimensions of consumers’ 
need for uniqueness. The findings of the study provide deeper insights into underlying mo-
tives for tourism experiences and offer implications for tourism practice.
Keywords: consumer behavior, tourism, tourist experience, consumers’ need for uniqueness, independent self-
construal, interdependent self-construal
JEL Classification: Z31; D12
DOI: 10.15458/85451.57
1 INTRODUCTION
Tourism as an important economic sector and a growing industry has been consistently 
increasing in importance, as international tourism has increased each year; thus, 
tourism destinations worldwide are continuously making efforts to reach tourists with 
various offers (World Tourism Organization, 2016). To increase tourists’ satisfaction, 
destinations are focusing on strategies to emphasize destinations’ attractiveness and 
competitive positions (Dmitrović et al., 2009). Moreover, in recent decades, the tourism 
and hospitality literature has acknowledged the emerging meaning of tourist experiences 
(Cohen, 1979; Quan & Wang, 2004), especially in the field of tourism marketing, and 
have connected its economic value (Pine & Gilmore, 1998) to not only tourism products 
and services but also destinations (Volo, 2010). Thus, to build involved relationships 
with tourists, destination marketers should provide positive experiences to tourists 
(Cetin & Bilgihan, 2016).
1 Corresponding author, University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies – Turistica, Portorož, Slovenia, 
e-mail: zana.civre@fts.upr.si
2 University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics, Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: tomaz.kolar@ef.uni-lj.si
      ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No.  1  |  2018  |  111-157

112 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
In this vein, Williams (2006) claimed that the marketing strategies employed by tourist 
destinations should focus more on the customers than just the destination offer itself due 
to tourists’ changing and diverse motivations and behaviors, since, as reported by several 
other authors (e.g., Kim, 2010; Pizam, 2010), tourism essentially offers and sells a range of 
experiences. As a result of these factors, customer experience management in tourism and 
hospitality has numerous challenges. As found by Hwang and Seo (2016), a large portion 
of studies remain conceptual and related to experiences measurement rather than with 
rigorous empirical studies that would provide insight into experiences antecedents that 
are managerially relevant. Among these drivers internal ones such as consumer motives 
are particularly neglected (Taheri, Farrington, Gori, Hogg, & O’Gorman, 2017). Hence, 
it is important to note that tourism offers are perceived differently by different tourist 
segments, depending on their specific needs (Wong & Wan, 2013).
In this paper, we follow the basic notion of uniqueness theory, which posits that individuals 
sometimes acquire a need for uniqueness motivation as they are uncomfortable when they 
feel too much similarity to others. They behave according to this feeling, which is reflected 
in their purchasing behavior (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977; 1980). In terms of consumption, 
need for uniqueness (NFU) can be satisfied not only through products and services, but 
also through experiences (Lynn & Harris, 1997a). What is more, in order to satisfy this 
uniqueness-seeking motivation, individuals strive to enhance their social and self-image 
(Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001). Applying this notion to a tourism context, it can be 
assumed that the greater the similarity to others, the more tourists are motivated to satisfy 
their need for uniqueness and enhance/emphasize their selves when deciding where to 
travel and spend their leisure time. Since tourists connect their selves with the chosen 
destination in order to seek unique experiences (Wang & Hsu, 2010), the question arises 
whether, and how, tourist’s actual experiences might satisfy this need for uniqueness and 
to what degree this is driven by their selves.
Considering this, a gap in tourism research exists in regard to underlying tourist 
motivations. Accordingly, these issues might pose new challenges for practitioners. 
Managerially, understanding tourism motivation and its determinant, the need for 
uniqueness can help them facilitate more memorable tourism experiences, while 
understanding different psychological motives could help marketers identify and attract 
different tourist segments. 
The purpose of this paper is to respond to the identified imperatives and redress these 
gaps by  investigating the influence of self-construal on consumers’ need for uniqueness 
(CNFU) in a tourism context. Thus, the paper discusses and comprehensively explores 
(theoretically and empirically) relevant yet overlooked constructs, namely CNFU and 
self-construal. To obtain deeper insight into the self-related drivers of uniqueness-seeking 
motivation in terms of tourism experiences, more research should be done exploring 
the underlying psychological motivations of tourists in this regard. Firstly, the paper 
introduces the theoretical concepts of CNFU and self-construal. Further attention is given 
to empirical research, where the proposed conceptual model is empirically developed and 
confirmed. In line with the findings of the empirical study, we also indicate managerial 

113 Ž. ČIVRE, T. KOLAR  |  EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS ...
implications and provide some baselines for further research. Lastly, the limitations of the 
study are discussed. 
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness 
The notion of the need for uniqueness is based on the theory of uniqueness. Social 
psychologists and uniqueness theorists (e.g., Snyder, 1992; Snyder & Fromkin, 1977, 1980) 
argued that individuals often find themselves in a social position in which they feel either 
too similar to or too different from others. Evidence points to a desire on the part of 
individuals to belong in their comfort zone, while still projecting a degree of uniqueness 
(He, Cong, Liu, & Zhou, 2010). Uniqueness theory’s original theoretical concept is closely 
related to Brewer’s (1991) Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT), which posits that 
individuals have both a need to assimilate and a need to differentiate themselves from 
others. As such, they are always seeking to find a balance between the two (Ryu & Han, 
2009). Ruvio (2008) stressed that everyone wants to feel unique to a certain degree without 
losing the sense that they are like everybody else (accepted as a part of a group while still 
sometimes wanting to be unlike others). In line with this notion, Snyder and Fromkin 
(1980) believe that people crave a feeling of uniqueness. In contemporary consumer 
behavior, Tian et al. (2001) conceptualized the concept of CNFU on the basis of the theory 
of uniqueness. As such, CNFU is simply the extension of NFU into the field of consumer 
behavior (Ruvio, 2008). Tian et al. (2001, p. 52) explained CNFU as “the trait of pursuing 
differentness relative to others through the acquisition, utilization, and disposition of 
consumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one’s self-image and social 
image”. The authors conceptualized CNFU as a multidimensional construct including 
three dimensions. The first dimension, creative choice counter-conformity (CC), explains 
consumer purchase choices as differentiation between them and other consumers while 
at the same time maintaining a choice that is still within social norms (Tian et al., 2001). 
The second dimension of CNFU, unpopular choice counter-conformity (UC), is the most 
extreme dimension, as it reflects consumer choices that deviate from social norms (Tian 
et al., 2001) and thus are considered as not acceptable by others (Knight & Kim, 2007). 
Finally, avoidance of similarity (AS), the third dimension of CNFU, is the tendency of 
consumers to strive to be different from others by avoiding purchasing products that are 
commonplace and accepted by the general population (Tian et al., 2001). 
Tian et al. (2001) explained CNFU as an individual difference, while others consider 
it a psychological trait (e.g., Zhan & He, 2012) or a mere trait (e.g., Gentina, Butori, & 
Heath, 2014). Regardless, all understand the CNFU concept as the motivation on the part 
of consumers to purchase a particular product or service that helps them satisfy their 
NFU and differentiate them from the masses. Moreover, researchers tend to agree that 
consumers may acquire and satisfy their need for uniqueness through different means in 
the context of consumption. Early studies based on uniqueness theory have demonstrated 
that the need for uniqueness can be satisfied by possessing rare products (e.g., Snyder, 

114 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
1992; Lynn & Harris, 1997a; Tian et al., 2001), products with distinct product designs (e.g., 
Bloch, 1995), and new products (e.g., Lynn, 1991). More recent research has indicated that 
consumers can display their uniqueness through possessions of conspicuous products 
(e.g., Jang, Ko, Morris, & Chang, 2015), unique products (e.g., Lynn & Snyder, 2002; 
Simonson & Nowlis, 2000), products with distinct aesthetic characteristics (e.g., Mowen, 
Fang, & Scott, 2010), personalized products (e.g., Halepete, Littrell, & Park, 2009), and 
memorable acquisitions (e.g., Song & Lee, 2013). Consumers can even meet their need 
for uniqueness through the possession of products that can be used in a creative way (e.g., 
Tian et al., 2001). 
With the increasing academic attention to CNFU over the last decade, a rich body of 
literature has come to exist regarding how CNFU is applied to several product types that 
do not specifically express uniqueness itself, but represent or signal consumer uniqueness 
in some way and enable consumers to differentiate themselves from others, even in regard 
to everyday products or services. However, little research has been devoted to the focus 
of CNFU in relation to the purchase behavior for services. Even less empirical evidence 
exists about the role of CNFU in terms of tourism with an emphasis on experiences, with 
a few exceptions (e.g., Ding & Keh, 2016; Liu, Chen, & He, 2015). To the best of our 
knowledge, no studies have explored how tourists’ need for uniqueness may influence 
their destination choice driven by its self-related antecedents, despite a call from prior 
studies (e.g., Ruvio, 2008; Ruvio, Shoham, & Makovec Brenčič, 2008) for further research 
in this setting. Due to the general consensus about the intangibility of tourism, we argue 
that tourism experiences might satisfy consumers’ need for uniqueness motivation, which 
is driven and fostered by their self-construal.
2.2 Self-construal
Academic attention in the field of psychology has long been payed to the research about 
the self (Cross & Madson, 1997), as well as in the field of consumer behavior following 
the notion that possessions can be considered as an extension of the self (Belk, 1988). 
In this vein, Tian et al. (2001) argued that drivers of CNFU can be found in the theory 
of consumption as an extension of self (Belk, 1988). In line with the research focus of 
this paper, we chose self-construal as a potential antecedent to CNFU as it refers to how 
individuals perceive themselves in relation to others (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Lewis, 
Goto, & Kong, 2008; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This might be in line with the concept that 
CNFU is a motivation manifested in comparison with others. More specifically, Agrawal 
and Maheswaran (2005, p. 841) defined the concept of self-construal as “the extent to 
which individuals view themselves either as an individuated entity or in relation to 
others. ” Accordingly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) conceptualized it through two separate 
facets. The authors argued that individuals hold a different self-construal (independent 
vs. interdependent) depending on their cultural background, while others have claimed 
that individuals can hold (at the same time) both self-construals, regardless of the cultural 
context (e.g., Matsumoto, 2003).

115 Ž. ČIVRE, T. KOLAR  |  EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS ...
However, the literature agrees that individuals with a predominately independent self-
construal hold a more “bounded, unitary, stable self” and are aware of their separation 
from others (Singelis, 1994, p. 581). Independents see themselves as separate from the 
group, as they want to be autonomous, unique, and independent (Markus & Kitayama, 
1991). Contrarily, individuals with predominantly interdependent self-construal value 
connectedness with others, as they value group harmony and group belonging (Singelis, 
1994). In addition, interdependents are prone to being concerned with identity, which 
depends on their relationship with others, as they put a lot of emphasis on the opinions 
of others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and thus follow the goals of their social group 
(Triandis, 1995). 
Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of this paper, which discusses and 
comprehensively explores (theoretically and empirically) two relevant yet overlooked 
constructs, namely CNFU and self-construal (independent and interdependent), which 
shape the tourist experiences domain. With this in mind, the central contention of this 
research is that self-construal plays a critical role as a relevant antecedent to CNFU in 
the domain of tourist experiences. Following the proposed framework, hypotheses 
development is discussed as follows. 
Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the impact of self-construal on CNFU in the tourist 
experience domain
Note: For clarity, Figure 1 presents the CNFU concept as an overall concept, but in our 
research design it is conceptualized as a three-dimensional concept, namely CC (i.e., 
creative choice counter-conformity), UC (i.e., unpopular choice counter-conformity), and 
AS (i.e., avoidance of similarity).
2.3 Hypotheses development
CNFU motivates consumers to diff erentiate themselves from others with the aim of 
enhancing their social and self-image (Tian et al., 2001). Th us, in the current context, 
we follow the notion of Tian et al. (2001), who argued that antecedents of CNFU derive 

116 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
from the theory of consumption as an extension of the self (Belk, 1988). As self-construal 
is considered a dimension of self that refers not only to the perception of one’s self but 
his/herself in relation to others, we argue that in striving for a sense of uniqueness and 
specialness in relation to others, consumers’ consumption is influenced by their self-
construal. Applying this notion to tourism, we further follow Belk (1988), who stated 
that not only possessions but also experiences and even places can be considered as an 
extension of consumers’ selves. In addition, although travel literature acknowledges that 
self-concept is an important driver of tourists’ motivation and behavior, there is still scant 
research in this area (Cohen, Prayag, & Moital, 2014), especially regarding consumers’ 
self-construal (Walker, Deng, & Dieser, 2001).
However, in consumer behavior literature, only a few studies have addressed the role of 
self-construal in uniqueness-seeking motivation. In particular, findings of a recent study 
in the case of scarce luxury fashion apparel, researchers found a positive relationship 
between independent self-construal and CNFU (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012, 2014). 
This implies that independents are inclined to obtain luxury products to satisfy their need 
for uniqueness in terms of all three facets of CNFU. In a similar vein, consumers with 
predominantly independent self-construal are motivated to seek uniqueness in their most 
important and most memorable product purchases (Song & Lee, 2013). Thus, the existing 
research evidence supports the conception of the role of independent self-construal in 
uniqueness-seeking motivation. 
This is congruent with the main theoretical aspect of self-construal, as independents 
look for variety and uniqueness in their consumption (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; White 
& Argo, 2011) in order to differentiate themselves from other consumers (Markus & 
Kitayama, 1991; Zhang & Shrum, 2009). Considering the notion that consumers who 
are motivated to satisfy their need for uniqueness through products and services that are 
less conventional and counter-conform (Snyder, 1992; Tian et al., 2001) and less popular 
(Chan, Berger, & Van Boven, 2012), and that independents desire to be unique (Markus & 
Kitayama, 1991), they most likely have a higher need for uniqueness in comparison with 
others (in terms of all three facets of CNFU).
Moreover, it is important to note that meaningful tourism experiences play an important 
role in shaping tourists’ self-identities (Noy, 2004), and some tourists like to be perceived 
by others through their travel experiences (Beerli, Meneses, & Gil, 2007). This implies 
that tourists who want to be independent, unique, and who value their originality most 
likely do not always follow the masses when choosing their vacation destinations. Thus, 
it can be expected that tourists who satisfy their need for uniqueness motivation through 
their travel experiences want to express and differentiate themselves in comparison with 
others, regardless of the CNFU facet. Reflecting this view, the following hypothesis is 
proposed:
H1 (H1a-H1c): Independent self-construal is positively related to CNFU (i.e., creative choice 
counter-conformity, unpopular choice counter-conformity, and avoidance of similarity).

117 Ž. ČIVRE, T. KOLAR  |  EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS ...
As aforementioned, consumers with predominantly interdependent self-construal are 
willing to conform to group norms and value group harmony (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; 
White & Argo, 2011). Empirical evidence shows that interdependent self-construal is 
positively related to CNFU when consumers are purchasing what is most important and 
memorable to them (Song & Lee, 2013). On the contrary, Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012) 
expected a negative effect of interdependent self-construal on all three aspects of CNFU 
in the domain of luxury fashion. But in their context, they failed to prove the proposed 
negative relationship. Thus, it seems that there is some inconsistency in the extant research. 
It is important to note, however, that since its appearance in the consumer behavior 
literature, NFU is operationalized through different measures. In our research setting, we 
follow Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012, 2014), who conceptualized CNFU through three 
dimensions of uniqueness-seeking motivation. Indeed, if we adapt the previous findings 
to the context of tourism, we argue that interdependents do not strive to differentiate 
themselves from others, as they do not want to stand out from the crowd. When choosing 
a vacation destination, the more interdependents want to be similar to others by adapting 
to group harmony, the less they acquire NFU as they search for travel experiences, which 
are considered as acceptable and regular within their social group. In order to assimilate 
with others, they are not inclined to emphasize their individuality, as they feel comfortable 
with their existing selves and would rather stay within their regular travel habits. Thus, the 
following hypothesis is proposed:
H2 (H2a-H2c): Interdependent self-construal is negatively related to CNFU (i.e., creative 
choice counter-conformity, unpopular choice counter-conformity, and avoidance of 
similarity).
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Sample
The proposed model presented in Figure 1 was tested among undergraduate students 
from a Slovenian university. In total, 196 students were invited to participate in the survey, 
of which four students refused to participate. Thus, the final sample includes a total 
of 192 respondents (27.1% male and 72.9% female). All the completed questionnaires 
were usable, as the respondents were kindly asked to fill out the questionnaire to its end. 
Students represent a good sample for behavioral literature (e.g., Tian et al., 2001) since 
traits such as CNFU are not supposed to be influenced by, for example, income and social 
status. 
3.2 Instrument
The respondents participated in a self-administered online survey. The questionnaire was 
developed based on the review of the literature and consisted of three parts, each part 
presenting the questions regarding the three constructs in a conceptualized model (i.e., 

118 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
CNFU, independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal). More specifically, 
CNFU was operationalized as a three-dimensional construct (i.e., CC, UC, and AS) 
using the CNFU-S shortened scale by Ruvio et al. (2008), each dimension consisting of 
four items. For the purpose of this study, items were adapted to the destination choice 
context. Participants were asked to rate each of the items regarding their most memorable 
vacation destination choice. The first dimension measuring creative choice counter-
conformity (CC) included items such as “I actively seek to develop my personal uniqueness 
by choosing special destinations.” The second dimension measuring unpopular choice 
counter-conformity (UC) included items such as “I enjoy challenging people’s tastes by 
visiting a specific destination even though my friends and/or family do not approve”. The 
third dimension measuring avoidance of similarity (AS) included items such as “When 
a destination I already visited becomes popular among the general population, I do not like 
to visit it anymore.” In addition, two dimensions of self-construal (i.e., independent and 
interdependent) were measured using Singelis’s (1994) scale, combined with D’ Amico and 
Scrima’s (2016) shortened version (SCS) of the scale. Ten items were used to measure 
independent self-construal (e.g., “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many 
respects”) and nine items to measure interdependent self-construal (e.g., “I will sacrifice 
my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in ”). All the items were measured on 7-point 
Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 7-strongly agree).
3.3 Results and hypotheses testing
Since the theory for all the measurement items for each considered construct was already 
established and adapted from previous research work (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012, 
2014), there was no need to explore the factor structure to test the measurement model. 
Thus, to test the measurement model, first, separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) 
were conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the items measured following 
Kastanakis and Balabanis (2014). CFA analyses were employed with LISREL 8.80 using 
the Maximum Likelihood estimation method. Due to high error variances, one item was 
eliminated for the CC dimensions of the CNFU construct, six items for independent self-
construal, and five items for interdependent self-construal. Thus, 19 items were left which 
still allowed us to continue with the analysis. 
After assessing the separate constructs, CFA analysis was employed to test the overall 
measurement model. The results of the measurement model have acceptable fit indices 
(χ2=161.69; df=142; χ2/df=1.138; p=0.123; RMSEA=0.027; GFI=0.918; CFI=0.986; 
NNFI=0.983 SRMR=0.05). Table 1 presents the measurement constructs along with the 
values of mean and standard deviation, average variance extracted (AVE), composite 
reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The values for CR and Cronbach’s alpha 
are all above the cut-off value 0.6 - therefore, internal consistency is accepted (Fornell & 
Larcker, 1981). Additionally, the constructs’ reliability was assessed with AVE. Following 
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) suggested cut-off value for AVE (i.e., 0.5), all sub-dimensions 
of the CNFU construct have good reliability (above or very close to 0.5), except the 
independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal, which have an AVE less 

119 Ž. ČIVRE, T. KOLAR  |  EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS ...
than 0.5. However, we decided to continue with the analysis following several authors (e.g., 
Bodlaj, 2010; Chen & Huang, 2016; Flynn & Goldsmith, 2017), retaining the constructs 
with AVEs less than 0.5 but more than 0.4. In particular, if we take into account that this is 
a first-time study in the present cultural environment, we considered both self-construals 
as adequate for further analysis. Moreover, as all the factor loadings for all items are 
statistically significant, convergent validity is still supported (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
T able 1: Descriptive statistics, average variance extracted, composite reliability and Cronbach ’ s 
alpha coefficients
Mean
(M)
Standard 
Deviation
(SD)
Average 
variance 
extracted 
(AVE)
Composite 
reliability 
(CR)
Cronbach’s 
alpha
Independent self-
construal
5.46 0.944 0.404 0.718 0.657
Interdependent self-
construal
5.26 0.868 0.417 0.734 0.714
CNFU (CC) 5.02 0.942 0.485 0.620 0.710
CNFU (UC) 3.93 1.228 0.531 0.811 0.790
CNFU (AS) 3.62 1.469 0.674 0.891 0.889
Table 2 shows the correlation matrix to provide additional insight into the relationships 
between proposed constructs. In addition, discriminant validity was evaluated following 
Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010). The AVE values for each construct were higher 
than the squared correlations between each pair of constructs. Based on the results, 
discriminant validity was achieved (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), which additionally confirms 
our decision to continue with the analysis. Thus, we argue that the constructs are suitable 
for further analysis in this setting.
Table 2: Correlation matrix
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. CNFU (CC) 1 0.239 0.191 0.270 0.097
2. CNFU (UC) 1 0.290 0.024 -0.062
3. CNFU (AS) 1 0.156 -0.039
4. Independent self-
construal
1 0.000
5. Interdependent self-
construal
1
After assessing the measurement model, structural equation modeling was employed in 
order to examine the hypothesized relationships in the final model. Table 3 shows the 

120 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
results for the final structural model, where the structural relationships are presented, 
including independent self-construal, interdependent self-construal and all three 
dimensions of CNFU. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the overall structural model 
are acceptable (χ2=183.87; df=145; χ2/df=1.26; p=0.016; RMSEA=0.037; GFI=0.908; 
CFI=0.969; NNFI=0.964; SRMR=0.08). 
As proposed in H1, the results of the study show that independent self-construal has a 
positive and significant effect on two dimensions of CNFU, namely CC (β=0.327) and AS 
(β=0.196) - thus H1a and H1c are supported. However, the findings of the study do not 
support the significant positive relationship between independent self-construal and UC 
(H1b not supported). Thus, H1 is partially supported. Moreover, although we assumed a 
significant negative effect of interdependent self-construal on each dimension of CNFU 
(H2a-H2c), the empirical evidence does not support the proposed relationship. Therefore, 
H2 is not supported. 
Table 3: Hypotheses testing and results
Path H Proposed 
direction
Standardized 
coefficient
t-value Hypotheses
Independent self-construal 
→ Consumers’ need for 
uniqueness (CC) 
H1a + 0.327* 3.074 Supported
Independent self-construal 
→ Consumers’ need for 
uniqueness (UC)
H1b + 0.068 0.654 Not supported
Independent self-construal 
→ Consumers’ need for 
uniqueness (AS)
H1c + 0.196* 1.979 Supported
Interdependent self-construal 
→ Consumers’ need for 
uniqueness (CC)
H2a - 0.162 1.254 Not supported
Interdependent self-construal 
→ Consumers’ need for 
uniqueness (UC)
H2b - -0.094 -0.719 Not supported
Interdependent self-construal 
→ Consumers’ need for 
uniqueness (AS)
H2c - -0.053 -0.434 Not supported
R
2
 (CC)=0.085; R
2
 (UC)=0.007; R
2
 (AS)=0.031
4 DISCUSSION
The findings of the research revealed that self-construal is a relevant self-related and 
psychological predictor of CNFU, but only in terms of independent self-construal. In 
particular, the strongest effect was found between independent self-construal and the 
first dimension of CNFU (i.e., creative choice counter-conformity – CC) – thus H1a is 

121 Ž. ČIVRE, T. KOLAR  |  EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS ...
supported. This is congruent with the notion of the origins of uniqueness theory, where 
authors (e.g., Snyder & Fromkin, 1977, 1980) have stressed that consumers only want to 
be moderately different from others in terms of consumption. Moreover, findings indicate 
that tourists with more predominantly independent self-construal strive to acquire their 
need for uniqueness in regard to vacation destination choice to a level that is still within 
acceptable social norms. This implies that they want to express their uniqueness, be 
unique and special, and want to create a personal unique image with their destination 
choice, but only to the extent that they still receive social approval. Motives may be found 
in social psychology and marketing, where research has long recognized the fact that 
others influence individuals’ behavior (Ryu & Han, 2009). In addition, in modern society, 
individuals are keen, if not even somehow forced, to adapt to group harmony (Song & Lee, 
2013). This can be explained by conformity in terms of the emergence of group norms 
(Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975). 
Another positive effect found in this study was between independent self-construal and 
the third dimension of CNFU (i.e., avoidance of similarity – AS) – thus H1c is supported. 
The findings indicated that some tourists desire to acquire their independent self and 
satisfy their uniqueness motives by choosing destinations unpopular among the general 
population. These research findings are congruent with findings of previous research 
conducted by Song and Lee (2013) and Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012, 2014). Although 
a positive relationship was expected between independent self-construal and all three 
aspects of CNFU, as was indicated in previous studies (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012, 
2014; Song & Lee, 2013), we failed to prove a significant relationship between independent 
self-construal and the second dimension of CNFU (H1b), namely unpopular choice 
counter-conformity (UC). Therefore, H1 is partially supported. This means that tourists 
avoid seeking rebellious uniqueness when choosing their vacation destination, despite 
having independent self-construal. In particular, we argue that the reasons could depend 
upon the sample characteristics, as it seems that young travelers tend to avoid too strongly 
deviating from social norms. To some degree, this might be expected, as young people 
most often avoid social exclusion; therefore, they tend to not choose destinations that 
would affect or threaten their assimilation in their group. 
Additionally, this study revealed that interdependent self-construal is not a relevant 
antecedent of any dimension of CNFU (H2a-H2c); therefore, no empirical evidence 
supported H2. More specifically, it means that tourists’ interdependent self-construal 
does not influence their need for uniqueness motivation when they choose their vacation 
destination. This is in line with the findings of Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012), who 
also proposed that there is a negative relationship between interdependent self-construal 
and all three facets of CNFU using the same measure as we did but did not support the 
significant relationship. However, there are inconsistencies in the previous studies, since, 
to the contrary, Song and Lee (2013) proved that interdependents also acquire a need for 
uniqueness motivation. Yet, in their study the authors measured the concept of CNFU 
as unidimensional, using a desire for unique consumer products (DUCP) scale (Lynn & 
Harris, 1997b) rather than the three-dimensional shortened version of the CNFU-S scale 
(Ruvio et al., 2008) as did we and Kastanakis and Balabanis (2012). The inconsistency in 

122 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
the existing research findings could depend on the conceptualization and measurement of 
CNFU, as DUCP measures the desire for unique products, while CNFU assesses the desire 
to feel different from others in terms of uniqueness. However, it seems that in satisfying 
uniqueness-seeking motivation by young travelers, their interdependent self-construal 
does not play a significant role. This might be a result of the sample frame of this study. 
As reported by several other authors (e.g., Gazley & Watling, 2015; Sirgy & Su, 2000), 
public self-image influences young travelers’ travel behavior. Thus, future research might 
consider the moderating influence of specific groups with which young travelers compare 
each other in order to enhance their interdependent self-construal in uniqueness-seeking 
motivation.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the results of the study show that independent self-construal is a relevant 
antecedent to CNFU, namely in terms of its two dimensions (i.e., CC and AS). Despite 
the fact that we expected a significant negative influence of interdependent self-construal 
on each dimension of CNFU, empirical evidence showed that there is no significant 
relationship between the constructs. 
This study contributes importantly toward understanding the concept of CNFU in relation 
to self-related constructs, namely in the tourism experiences domain when tourists 
choose their vacation destinations. Hence, the findings indicate important managerial 
implications for destination marketers. As tourism experiences mostly depend on tourists’ 
motivation (Cetin & Bilgihan, 2016), they can satisfy tourists’ need for uniqueness 
motivation, which is, based on these research findings, driven by their independent self-
construal. Thus, these consumer segments could represent a specific and separate target 
group for particular destinations, since in order to be different from others, tourists strive 
to satisfy their need for uniqueness to enhance their independent self. More specifically, 
it means that tourists (in this case young travelers) with an independent self-construal 
acquire a need for uniqueness since they want to stand out from the crowd in order to feel 
special and different from others.
In particular, when offering experiences, destination practitioners could highlight 
uniqueness seeking motives, which help them to emphasize their individuality and 
originality. As the destination choice by specific tourists segments is driven by a desire to 
experience something special (Uriely, 2005), tourists who acquire a need for uniqueness 
motivation can represent a relevant target group, for example in one-to-one marketing. In 
addition, tourism and hospitality practitioners could implement their marketing strategies 
by underlying the uniqueness-seeking motivation in both designing and promoting 
products and services that offer memorable experiences to their visitors. For instance, 
specialized travel agencies, customized tourism products and services, and small boutique 
destinations have great potential to offer special experiences that help to differentiate 
tourists from the masses in order to enrich their “self ” . 

123 Ž. ČIVRE, T. KOLAR  |  EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS ...
The idea also relates to the notion that tourists connect with places (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 
2001) and their selves could influence their choice of vacation destination (Beerli et al., 
2007). As our study further consolidates, the tourists’ independent self-construal could 
be triggered when a destination is being described and promoted. Kwon and Mattila 
(2015) even argued that tourists’ self-construal can be, at least temporarily, manipulated 
through different marketing activities. In terms of promotional activities of destinations, 
practitioners could attract independents by incorporating promotional messages in their 
communication strategies such as “be original/unique” or “enjoy your uniqueness and be 
different from others, “chose your destination in your own way” , etc., in order to enhance 
their selves. Consequently, by offering experiences, which could manage to satisfy their 
need for specialness, tourists feel that their selves are enhanced when they choose a 
particular destination and thereby expresses their individuality and independence. Thus, 
destination managers could solicit tourists with independent self-construal when trying 
to promote and sell experiences within their destination offer. 
The study also contributes to the theoretical knowledge of CNFU in terms of testing the 
psychological antecedent (i.e., self-construal) in the tourism context. What is more, the 
concept of CNFU was tested using the shortened CNFU-S scale developed and proposed 
by Ruvio et al. (2008). Given the fact that the CNFU concept is still a relatively new 
phenomenon in consumer behavior literature, having been examined most extensively in 
the last decade, the important contribution is in testing the proposed relationship using 
CNFU as a three-dimensional concept rather than as unidimensional, which has been the 
case in the majority of extant studies. To our knowledge, only Kastanakis and Balabanis 
(2014) used the shortened version of the CNFU-S scale in relation to both dimensions of 
self-construal, yet only in the UK sample in terms of luxury fashion.
Despite the fact that this study offers several important insights, several limitations should 
be addressed. Although student samples are appropriate for theoretical predictions 
(Calder, Phillips, & Tybout, 1981), they limit the generalizability of the research findings. 
In respect to its representativeness, in further studies sampling should be different from 
the convenience sample. Another limitation is the lower AVE value for independent 
and interdependent self-construal. The reasons behind this are discussed in the analysis 
section of the paper, and thus the conclusions of this study should be considered with 
caution. The study examines a relatively narrow set of experiences/drivers, which were 
not found to explain a large share of variance, so it is likely that other factors affect tourist 
experiences as well. According to Hwang and Seo (2016), tourist experience is considered 
to be a multidimensional concept influenced by a variety of factors, both internal (e.g., 
knowledge, personality , familiarity , past experience, etc.) and external (e.g., product quality , 
physical characteristics, social environment etc.). Thus, in future research, a replicated and 
extended model could be tested by considering other relevant psychological, self- and 
social- related antecedents and behavior, such as experience-related consequences. Future 
research involving tourists from other cultures would also be useful in confirming the 
results of this research, as well as including various age groups. 

124 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
REFERENCES
Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The Effects of Self-Construal and Commitment 
on Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 841–849. 
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice - a 
review and recommended 2-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Beerli, A., Meneses, G. D., & Gil, S. M. (2007). Self-congruity and destination choice. 
Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 571–587. 
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 
15(2), 139–168.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. 
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.
Bodlaj, M. (2010). The Impact of a Responsive and Proactive Market Orientation on 
Innovation and Business Performance. Economic and Business Review, 12(4), 241–261. 
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time. 
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
Burnkrant, R., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative social influence in 
consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 202–214.
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W ., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. 
Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197–207.
Cetin, G., & Bilgihan, A. (2016). Components of cultural tourists’ experiences in 
destinations. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(2), 137–154. 
Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but Not Identical: Combining 
Social Identity and Uniqueness Motives in Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 
561–573. 
Chen, Z., & Huang, Y. (2016). Cause-related marketing is not always less favorable than 
corporate philanthropy: The moderating role of self-construal. International Journal of 
Research in Marketing, 33(4), 868–880. 
Cohen, E. (1979). A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179–201.
Cohen, S. A., Prayag, G., & Moital, M. (2014). Consumer behaviour in tourism: Concepts, 
influences and opportunities. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 872–909. 

125 Ž. ČIVRE, T. KOLAR  |  EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS ...
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The Relational-Interdependent Self-
Construal and Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. 
Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37.
D’Amico, A., & Scrima, F. (2016). The Italian Validation of Singelis’s Self-Construal 
Scale (SCS): a Short 10-Item Version Shows Improved Psychometric Properties. Current 
Psychology, 35(1), 159–168. 
Ding, Y., & Keh, H. T. (2016). A re-examination of service standardization versus 
customization from the consumer’s perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(1), 16–28. 
Dmitrović, T., Cvelbar, L. K., Kolar, T., Makovec Brenčič, M., Ograjenšek, I., & Žabkar, V . 
(2009). Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at the destination level. International Journal 
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 116–126. 
Flynn, R. L., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2017). Filling some gaps in market mavenism research. 
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(2), 121–129. 
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable 
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. 
Gazley, A., & Watling, L. (2015). Me, My Tourist-Self, and I: The Symbolic Consumption 
of Travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(6), 639–655. 
Gentina, E., Butori, R., & Heath, T. B. (2014). Unique but integrated: The role of 
individuation and assimilation processes in teen opinion leadership. Journal of Business 
Research, 67(2), 83–91. 
Hair, J. F., Black, W . C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: 
a Global Perspective (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Halepete, J., Littrell, M., & Park, J. (2009). Personalization of Fair T rade Apparel: Consumer 
Attitudes and Intentions. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 27(2), 143–160. 
He, L., Cong, F., Liu, Y., & Zhou, X. (2010). The pursuit of optimal distinctiveness and 
consumer preferences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(5), 411–417. 
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical 
Questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273–281.
Hwang, J., & Seo, S. (2016). A critical review of research on customer experience 
management: Theoretical, methodological and cultural perspectives. International Journal 
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2218–2246. 

126 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
Jang, W. E., Ko, Y. J., Morris, J. D., & Chang, Y. (2015). Scarcity Message Effects on 
Consumption Behavior: Limited Edition Product Considerations. Psychology & Marketing, 
32(10), 989–1001. 
Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents 
of the “bandwagon” luxury consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 
1399–1407. 
Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2014). Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury 
consumption: An individual differences’ perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 
2147–2154. 
Kim, J. H. (2010). Determining the Factors Affecting the Memorable Nature of Travel 
Experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 780–796. 
Knight, D. K., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Japanese consumers’ need for uniqueness: Effects on 
brand perceptions and purchase intention. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 
11(2), 270–280. 
Kwon, E., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). The Effect of Self-Brand Connection and Self-
Construal on Brand Lovers’ Word of Mouth (WOM). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 
56(4), 427–435. 
Lewis, R. S., Goto, S. G., & Kong, L. L. (2008). Culture and Context: East Asian American 
and European American Differences in P3 Event-Related Potentials and Self-Construal. 
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 623–634. 
Liu, L., Chen, R., & He, F. (2015). How to promote purchase of carbon offset products: 
Labeling vs. calculation? Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 942–948. 
Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity Effects on Value: A Quantitative Review of the Commodity 
Theory Literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8(1), 43–57. 
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997a). Individual Differences in the Pursuit of Self-Uniqueness 
Through Consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1861–1883. 
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997b). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual 
differences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 601–616. 
Lynn, M., & Snyder, C. R. (2002). Uniqueness Seeking. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), 
Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 395–410). New Y ork: Oxford University Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, 
Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. 

127 Ž. ČIVRE, T. KOLAR  |  EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NEED- AND SELF-RELATED ASPECTS ...
Matsumoto, D. (2003). The Discrepancy between Consensual-Level Culture and 
Individual-Level Culture. Culture & Psychology, 9(1), 89–95.
Mowen, J. C., Fang, X., & Scott, K. (2010). Visual product aesthetics A hierarchical analysis 
of its trait and value antecedents and its behavioral consequences. European Journal of 
Marketing, 44(11–12), 1744–1762. 
Noy, C. (2004). This trip really changed me: Backpackers’ Narratives of Self-Change. 
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 78–102.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). W elcome to the experience economy. Harward Business 
Review, 76(4), 97–105.
Pizam, A. (2010). Creating memorable experiences. International Journal of Hospitality 
Management, 29(3), 343–343. 
Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: An 
illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3), 279–305.
Ruvio, A. (2008). Unique Like Everybody Else? The Dual Role of Consumers’ Need for 
Uniqueness. Psychology & Marketing, 25(5), 444–464. 
Ruvio, A., Shoham, A., & Makovec Brenčič, M. (2008). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: 
short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. International Marketing 
Review, 25(1), 33–53. 
Ryu, G., & Han, J. K. (2009). Word-of-mouth transmission in settings with multiple 
opinions: The impact of other opinions on WOM likelihood and valence. Journal of 
Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 403–415.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness 
in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons. Journal of 
Consumer Research, 27(1), 49–68. 
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-
Construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.
Sirgy, J. M., & Su, C. (2000). Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel Behavior: 
Toward an Integrative Model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340–352.
Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product Scarcity by Need for Uniqueness Interaction: A Consumer 
Catch-22 Carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 9–24. 
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a Positive Characteristic: The 
Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness. Journal of 
Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518–527.

128 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 20  |  No. 1  |  2018
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference (1st 
ed.). Minneapolis: Springer.
Song, D., & Lee, J. (2013). Balancing “We” and “I”: Self-construal and an alternative 
approach to seeking uniqueness. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(6), 506–516. 
T aheri, B., Farrington, T ., Gori, K., Hogg, G., & O’Gorman, K. D. (2017). Escape, entitlement, 
and experience: liminoid motivators within commercial hospitality. International Journal 
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1148–1166. 
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: 
Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. New directions in social psychology. 
Boulder: Westview Press.
Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience-Conceptual Developments. Annals of Tourism 
Research, 32(1), 199–216. 
Volo, S. (2010). Bloggers’ reported tourist experiences: Their utility as a tourism data source 
and their effect on prospective tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(4), 297–311.
W alker, G. J., Deng, J., & Dieser, R. B. (2001). Ethnicity, Acculturation, Self-Construal, and 
Motivations for Outdoor Recreation. Leisure Sciences, 23(4), 263–283.
Wang, C., & Hsu, M. K. (2010). The Relationships of Destination Image, Satisfaction, and 
Behavioral Intentions: An Integrated Model. Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 
829–843. 
White, K., & Argo, J. J. (2011). When Imitation Doesn’t Flatter: The Role of Consumer 
Distinctiveness in Responses to Mimicry. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 667–680. 
Williams, A. (2006). Tourism and hospitality marketing : fantasy, feeling and fun. 
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 482–495. 
Wong, I. A., & Wan, Y. K. P. (2013). A Systematic Approach to Scale Development in 
Tourist Shopping Satisfaction: Linking Destination Attributes and Shopping Experience. 
Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), 29–41. 
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2016). UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2016 
Edition. Madrid: UNWTO.
Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer 
perceptions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1452–1460. 
Zhang, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). The Influence of Self‐Construal on Impulsive 
Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 838–850.