Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Opinion leaders are a prime target group for any company. Studies on consumer behaviour support the importance of personal sources of information and influence. Still, careful attention should be given to methods of identifying these individuals.
We assess existing methods to identify opinion leaders. In particular, we address the question whether the most prominent construct, the King/Summers scale, is able to reliably and validly identify those individuals that perform as opinion givers.
On the basis of a survey of 10’100 respondents on money matters, we test this concept of opinion leadership. We show that without the benefit of ego-centred network analysis any study runs the risk of misjudging the importance of individuals identified as opinion leaders. We suggest a combination of network size and opinion leadership, arriving at a role differentiation of four groups. With this, we draft a communication model for active opinion leaders, communicators, silent experts and inactives.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: One aspect of group structure which has not received much theoretical or empirical evaluation is informal status. Status is an emergent property of formal and informal groups and implies a positive evaluation by other members of the group. In addition, the influence of the number of group members who share status has never been explored. This paper focuses on group relationships and evaluates the impact of the number of opinion seekers and opinion leaders on individual technology related attitudes and behavior. The research model was built on the social influence model presented by Fulk (1993) and tested across multiple mediating variables suggested in the social psychological literature including cohesiveness, three types of uncertainty, two levels of uncertainty, and two media types. Contrary to the dominant theoretical position, the number of opinion leaders did not influence technology attitudes. Rather, the number of opinion seekers had a significantly influence. Consistent with the literature on conformity, the influence of the number of opinion seekers was moderated by the degree of cohesiveness, type and level of uncertainty, and the type of media chosen.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Legislators possess a variety of means to formally constrain a court, from curtailing the docket or changing the duties or composition of the jurists to directly reversing the decision either through the passage of a statute or adoption of a constitution amendment. Directly challenging the court is not the only option available to legislators and other political actors. Through ad hominem attacks against the court or the introduction of legislation criticizing the court, political actors may create a political environment hostile to the judiciary (Liptak 2006). Since legislators often respond to the decisions of the court in one form or another (Whittington 1999, 2007; Pickerill 2004), how and the degree to which political actors respond to the court may indicate the willingness to formally constrain or defile the judiciary.
The reactions by other government actors and the subsequent counter-reactions by the judiciary indicate that the existing literature on judicial independence is narrowly conceived. Many theories of judicial independence suggest that autonomy is measured by the degree to which justices are insulated from pressure or undue influence by the other branches of the government (see Epstein et al. 2001; Moustafa 2003). However, studies that measures the institutional arrangements of the court, the decisions of the court, or when the decisions are overturned or ignored face important limitations (Larkins 1996). In this paper, I examine will examine how members of the United States Congress and the Parliament of Canada responded to judicial opinions from their respective Supreme Court during their 2007 term.

Publication Type: Session Paper