Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SHAH ABDUL LATIF UNIVERSITY, KHAIRPUR
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
INFLUENCE OF CONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS, DOGMATISM,
SOCIAL CHARACTER, AND NEED FOR UNIQUNESS ON NEW
PRODUCT ADOPTION: A RURAL PERSPECTIVE
PhD Dissertation
By
MOHAMMAD ISMAIL SOOMRO
A thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
to Directorate of Post Graduate Studies at Shah Abdul Latif University
Khairpur (Sindh) Pakistan
March, 2015
1
ABSTRACT
Purpose: This study provides a theoretical framework that explores the personality
traits that influence new product adoption in rural environment. Five personality traits
form part of the framework, namely; consumer innovativeness, dogmatism, social
character (inner and other directed), and need for uniqueness. This study will pave a
way in understanding the potential behavior of consumers toward adoption of a newly
introduced product in a given environment. Following the conceptualization of NPA, a
conceptual model was proposed which represents five hypotheses: two hypotheses
were supported and three hypotheses were not supported.
Methodology: The data was collected from selected (rural) areas of upper Sindh
province of Pakistan using convenient sampling procedure; there were 430
respondents in the sample. Five-point Likert scale was adapted for the study, and a
pilot test was used to confirm the validity of the scales and the correctness of the data-
gathering procedure. Following the data gathering and coding, validity and reliability
tests were carried out on the entire sample. Keeping in view various constructs of
conceptual model, the proposed hypotheses were analyzed using the Structural
Equation Modeling (AMOS v.20) to test the impact of the constructs on NPA.
Findings and contribution of research: The evidence related to the model suggests
that consumer innovativeness and need for uniqueness are the dominant factors (traits)
in adopting a new product whereas social character (ID /OD), and dogmatism have no
significant impact on new product adoption behavior, it suggests that consumer
innovativeness and need for uniqueness traits of consumer personality are dominant
factors in adopting a new fashion and clothing product in rural market.
Research Limitations: First; the results of this study may not be appropriate for
generalizing across the majority of Pakistani consumers, and in a global context.
Second; the study is focusing only on fashion and clothing product category; third,
only selected personality traits are examined in the study.
2
Implications: By examining the potential behavior of rural consumers, the study
facilitates the possibility of consumer behavior research that, in new product adoption
decision consumer personality (traits) should have a significant contribution, thus
providing a better understanding of influence of their personality traits on new product
adoption.
KEYWORDS: New product adoption, consumer innovativeness, dogmatism, social
character, need for uniqueness, personality, fashion and clothing, and rural consumers.
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my parents and my uncle whose prayers, guidance, and
support made me able to perform this task well
3
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I Thank to my research supervisor Prof. Dr. Minhoon Khan Laghari for his continuous
guidance throughout this complex task, thanks is due also to my Co-supervisor Prof.
4
Dr. Syed Maqsood Zia Shah for his expert guidance and assistance for statistical
analysis needed in the thesis. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude and
appreciation to friends who continually aided me throughout this process. Especially I
thank to Dr. Wajid Hussain Rizvi for continuous guidance and support in statistical
analysis and thesis write- up, and Dr. Rahman Gul Gilal who helped me in
questionnaire development and remained with me during various stages of this
research and thesis.
CERTIFICATE
This thesis, submitted by Mr. Mohammad Ismail Soomro, Ph. D Research Scholar is
accepted in its present form to the Department of Business Administration, Shah
Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, Sindh, Pakistan and satisfying the thesis
5
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D) in Business
Administration.
Internal Examiner -----------------------
Prof. Dr. Minhoon Khan Laghari Supervisor
External Examiner -----------------------
External Examiner -----------------------
Chairperson
Department of Business Administration -----------------------
Dean
Faculty of Management Sciences -----------------------
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS
NPA New Product Adoption
CI Consumer Innovativeness
DOG Dogmatism
6
SC Social Character
ID Inner-directedness
OD Other-directedness
NFU Need For Uniqueness
PCA Principal Component Analysis
SEM Structural Equation Modeling
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
GFI Goodness of Fit Index
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
SRMR Standardized Root of Mean Square Residual
CFI Comparative Fit Index
CR Construct Reliability
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT. …………………………....………………………………. i
DEDICATION ………………………....………………………......…... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………....…………………………….. iv
CERTIFICATE-1 ......................................................................................... v
CERTIFICATE-2 ......................................................................................... vi
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS .…………………………………….……… vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……….....……………………………………… viii
7
LIST OF TABLES….……………………………………………….......… xi
LIST OF FIGURES …………………..……………………………...……. xii
LIST OF GRAPHS........................................................................................ xiii
CHAPTER – 1 INTRODUCTION
…………..………………………..........1
1.1. Overview…………….........................………………….......... 1
1.2 Theoretical background…….…………………………........... 2
1.3 The aims of the research…………………….………….......... 5
1.4 Structure of Thesis……………….……………………........... 5
CHAPTER – 2 LITERATURE
REVIEW……………………..................... 6 2.1. New-Product Adoption Behavior ……………………........... 6
2.2. New Product adoption (Process)……………………… .......... 7
2.2.1. Stages of Adoption ……………………………......... 11
2.2.2. Innovation Adoption Process…………………......... 14
2.2.3. Reasons for no or slow adoption……………............ 15
2.3. Fashion……...............……...……………………….............. 15
2.3.1. The Dimensions of Fashion…………………............ 15
2.3.2. Newness of Fashion and Cloths……………….......... 17
2.3.3. Fashion Adoption……………………........................ 18
2.3.4. Adoption Categories……………………................... 18
2.3.4.1. Fashion Innovators………....................................... 19
2.3.4.2. Early Adopters……............………………….......... 20
2.3.4.3. Early Majority……................……………………... 20
2.3.4.4. Late Majority…............…………………………..... 21
2.3.4.5. Laggards……………………................................... 21
2.4. Consumer Personality…….………………........................... 21
2.4.1. Theories of Personality………………………............. 22
2.5. Consumer innovativeness………………………………...... 24
2.5.1. Product Innovativeness…………….....….................. 27
2.5.2 . Innovativeness and time of adoption……………...... 28
2.5.3. Actualized innovativeness…………………............. 28
2.5.4. Innate Consumer Innovativeness………………........ 28
2.5.5. Measures of Consumer innovativeness…................. 30
2.6. Dogmatism…………………………………………............. 30
2.6.1. Consumer Dogmatism……………………................ 31
2.6.2. Properties of dogmatism………………...………...... 32
2.6.3. Determinants of dogmatism……………………....... 34
2.6.4. Measures of dogmatism………………………......... 36
2.7. Social character…………………………..…………............ 36
2.7.1. Riesman's descriptions of inner and other directed
traits........................................................................................ 38
2.7.2 Measures of Social Character……………………...… 40
8
2.8. Need for Uniqueness…………………….............………..... 40
2.8.1. Uniqueness Theory …………………………............ 41
2.8.2. Measures of Need for Uniqueness …………………. 46
CHAPTER -3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES… 47
3.1 Overview of Product adoption………………………..…..... 47
3.2 Conceptual
model…………………………......……………. 47
3.2.1 Innovativeness and hypothesis…………………….. 48
3.2.2 Dogmatism and Hypothesis………………………...... 49
3.2.3 Social Character (Inner-directedness) and hypothesis..50
3.2.4 Social Character (Other-directedness) and hypothesis..51
3.2.5 Need for uniqueness and hypothesis…........................ 51
CHAPTER – 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……….........………...... 53
4.1. Method of Data Collection…….………............….……...... 53
4.1.1. Measures………………………................................ 53
4.1.2. Sample Design………………….............………...... 53
4.1.3. Questionnaire Design…................……………….... 54
4.2. Content Validity of Research Instrument……............……. 54
4.3 Development of New Product Adoption (NPA) scale............. 55
4.3.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales....... 55
4.4 Development of scales for constructs in the model............ 56
4.4.1 Consumer Innovativeness ………...........………... 56
4.4.1.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales....... 56
4.4.2 Dogmatism …………………….....…………….... 57
4.4.2.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales…... 58
4.4.3 Social character (Inner-directedness and other-
directedness)............................................................................
4.4.3.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales…... 60
4.4.4 Need for Uniqueness……………..……………......... 61
4.4.4.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales…... 61
4.5 Data Collection……………………….......……………….. 64
CHAPTER -5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS…………………….............. 65
5.1 EFA and CFA of research constructs……….…………….... 65
5.1.1. EFA and CFA for New Product Adoption….……...
5.1.1.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)………….…....... 65
5.1.1.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)…........……... 67
5.1.1.3 Construct Reliability of New Product Adoption….. 68
5.1.2. EFA and CFA for Consumer innovativeness…....... 69
5.1.2.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)…….………...... 69
9
5.1.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)…...………….. 71
5.1.2.3 Construct Reliability of Consumer innovativeness..... 72
5.1.3. EFA and CFA for Dogmatism…….......………….... 73
5.1.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)……...………..... 73
5.1.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)…...………….. 76
5.1.3.3 Construct Reliability of Dogmatism……...…………. 77
5.1.4. EFA and CFA for Social Character……...……….... 78
5.1.4.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)…...…………..... 78
5.1.4.1.1. Inner directed…………..................…………..... 78
5.1.4.1.2. Other directed………..............………………..... 80
5.1.4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)…...….............. 82
5.1.4.3 Construct Reliability of Social Character…...…….... 83
5.1.5. EFA and CFA for Need for Uniqueness…...……....... 85
5.1.5.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)…...……………. 85
5.1.5.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)…...………….. 87
5.1.5.3 Construct Reliability of Need For Uniqueness…....... 89
5.2 Results……......……………………………………………... 90
5.2.1 Results whole model…………..…………………..... 90
5.3 Hypotheses support summary…………...………………….. 91
CHAPTER- 6 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS…..………........... 95
6.1 Discussion ……………………......……………………………. 95
6.1.1 Influences of personality traits………......……....... 95
6.1.2 Limitations of the study………….……………...... 96
6.1.3 Managerial implication ………….........………....... 96
6.1.4 Future research directions ……………….….......... 97
6.2 Conclusion…….....…………………………………………… 97
REFERENCES……………..………………………………………............. 99
APPENDICES……………………………………………………….......... 108
Appendix A: Questionnaire …………………………….............. 108
Appendix B: Model Fit Summary ………………………………. 113
Appendix C: Final model based on modification indices ............ 119
LIST OF TABLES
10
Table 2.1: an overview of models of adoption processes.............................. 11
Table 5.1: KMO and Bartlett’s Test for NPA ................................................ 65
Table 5.2: Eigenvalue of NPA ....................................................................... 66
Table 5.3: Component matrix of NPA ........................................................... 67
Table 5.4: Construct Reliability of NPA ........................................................ 68
Table 5.5: Item-Total Statistics (Reliability) of NPA..................................... 69
Table 5.6: KMO and Bartlett’s Test for CI .................................................... 69
Table 5.7: Eigenvalue of CI ........................................................................... 70
Table 5.8: Component matrix of CI ............................................................... 71
Table 5.9: Construct Reliability of CI ............................................................ 72
Table 5.10: Item-Total Statistics (Reliability) of CI........................................ 73
Table 5.11: KMO and Bartlett’s Test for Dogmatism .................................... 73
Table 5.12: Eigenvalue of Dogmatism ........................................................... 74
Table 5.13: Component matrix of Dogmatism ............................................... 75
Table 5.14: Construct Reliability of Dogmatism ............................................ 77
Table 5.15: Item-Total Statistics (Reliability) of Dogmatism......................... 77
Table 5.16: KMO and Bartlett’s Test for SC (ID) .......................................... 78
Table 5.17: Eigenvalue of SC (ID) ................................................................. 78
Table 5.18: Component matrix of SC (ID) ..................................................... 80
Table 5.19: KMO and Bartlett’s Test for SC (OD) ........................................ 80
Table 5.20: Eigenvalue of SC (OD) ............................................................... 81
Table 5.21: Component matrix of SC (OD) ................................................... 82
Table 5.22: Construct Reliability of SC (ID) ................................................. 83
Table 5.23: Item-Total Statistics (Reliability) of SC (ID)............................... 84
Table 5.24: Construct Reliability of SC (OD) ................................................ 84
Table 5.25: Item-Total Statistics (Reliability) of SC (OD)............................. 85
Table 5.26: KMO and Bartlett’s Test for NFU .............................................. 85
Table 5.27: Eigenvalue of NFU ..................................................................... 86
Table 5.28: Component matrix of NFU ......................................................... 87
Table 5.29: Construct Reliability of NFU ...................................................... 89
Table 5.30: Item-Total Statistics (Reliability) of NFU................................... 89
Table 5.31: Hypotheses support summary...................................................... 91
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: New Product adoption process...................................................... 7
11
Figure 2.2: Roger’s new product Adoption model ......................................... 8
Figure 2.3: New product adoption and buying decision process..................... 9
Figure 2.4: An overview of the innovation adoption decision process and
its main drivers .......................................................................... 13
Figure 2.5: Categories of new product adopters............................................. 14
Figure 3.1: Conceptual model......................................................................... 48
Figure 5.1: Measurement model of NPA ....................................................... 68
Figure 5.2: Measurement model of CI............................................................ 72
Figure 5.3: Measurement model of Dogmatism............................................. 76
Figure 5.4: Measurement model of SC........................................................... 83
Figure 5.5: Measurement model of NFU........................................................ 88
Figure 5.6: Whole model................................................................................ 92
Figure 5.7: Alternate model-1........................................................................ 93
Figure 5.8: Alternate model-2........................................................................ 94
LIST OF GRAPHS
12
Graph 5.1: Scree Plot for NPA................................................................ 66
Graph 5.2: Scree Plot for CI.................................................................... 70
Graph 5.3: Scree Plot for Dogmatism..................................................... 75
Graph 5.4: Scree Plot for SC (ID).......................................................... 79
Graph 5.5: Scree Plot for SC (OD).......................................................... 81
Graph 5.6: Scree Plot for NFU................................................................ 86
CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION
13
1.2. Overview
To analyze the factors influencing on new product adoption behavior of consumers,
personality of a consumer is considered as one of the important factor. Personality of
the consumer has significant influence on consumption behavior; personality traits of
the consumer generate their own life style and consumption patterns.
It has been observed that due to different reasons some innovative products (total or
some features) failed in the market for adoption, because some consumers are less or
no innovative and are more traditional minded, rigid in their beliefs, or avoiding risk
of adopting a new product, where as some persons are more inner-directed; making
decisions by their own where as some are other-directed; depending on others in
making a buying decision, furthermore some persons want to be different and unique
in their lives and are more aggressive personality oriented. Before offering a new
product and selecting a target the most important thing is to know the aspects of
personality of the potential target.
The adoption of fashion products differs among individuals, with different
personalities. Since prior research has find and most of the researchers (e.g.,Schiffman
and Kanuk, 2008) have consensus on the view that personality of the consumer has
strong association to make their choice decisions and purchase of a broader category
of product not a specific brand. Consumer’s personality with reference to decide about
adopting an innovative product is defined as “the intrinsic organization of an
individual's mental world that is stable over time and consistent over situations"
(Mulaynegara et al., 2007; Vishwanath, 2005). Researchers have developed different
theories of personality and have interpreted them with reference to traits of
personality, like; “Neo-Freudian Theory, Cognitive theory, Trait Theory, Socio
psychoanalytic Theory, Gestalt Theory, and Stimulus Response theory”.
This research is trying to know the influence of traits in a consumer on adoption of
newly introduced product, hence other theories has not been discussed at this stage and
few of the traits of the trait theory are to be focused only, specifically consumer
innovativeness, dogmatism, social character, and need for uniqueness.
1.2 Theoretical background
14
Since the years marketing researchers and managers are interested in understanding
consumer decisions to adopt new products (Bearden and Etzel, 1982; Grier and
Deshpande, 2001; Sheth, Minttal and Newman, 1999). To explain the consumers’
adoption behavior two approaches have been used by new product adoption studies,
first approach using aggregate models, which examine the individuals when the
dispersion process of a new product goes completed. These models focused on ‘time
and sequence of adoption beside process of product diffusion. (Bass, 1969; Mahajan,
Muller, and Srivastava, 1990). Further, these models also categorize consumers as;
1. innovators
2. early adopters
3. early majority
4. late majority
5. Laggards
Some researchers (e.g., Midgley and Dowling, 1993; Summers, 1970; Danaher, Bruce,
Hardie, and William, 2001; Gatignon and Robertson, 1985; Horski, 1990; Labay and
Kinnear, 1981; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971) show a relationship between that group
of adopters and further personality traits, like; opinion leaders, socially active,
engaged, and courageous.
Second approach uses the contingency models suggested by Kenrick and Funder,
1988; Migdley and Dowling (1993) which is trying to explain and predict individual
adoption behaviors in away to exploring a consumer’s personal inclinations and
answer that, how these dispositions interrelate with specific situations?
Past research on fashion adoption is mostly focusing on urban market where as rural
market has been ignored in this context, whenever in recent market conditions the
rural market is being seen as a growing opportunity because the rural demand is
growing rapidly, purchasing power in rural population has increased, there is cut throat
competition in the urban markets, the rural market is mostly unexplored and untapped
by the marketers, there is greater volume and the strength of rural market, and it has
been observed that urban market is loyal to specific brands that becomes a threat and
the rural market becomes an opportunity for new entrants.
15
It is very essential to differentiate the buying behavior of consumers living in urban
area and those who live in rural areas. There are some wrong conceptions about the
rural markets in Pakistan that in rural areas of Pakistan the population is poor and
experiences lack of sufficient infrastructure, and rural Pakistan depends only upon
agriculture as an exclusive source of survival, even though the phenomenon is
relatively so but today’s Pakistan is different from past and due to some recent
developments rural areas have got sufficient infrastructure and enhancement in living
standard.
Since marketers need to segment the market and get targeting, there is a need to
understand the consumer particularly their buying and consumption behavior. Since
major (approx. 60%) portion of population in Pakistan is relating to rural area.
Life style of rural population significantly differs from urban population where
population is seemed as more conservative and tradition bound, and the change has
been noticed in the rural population by increase in income, and growth in education,
the media is intensively penetrating which moves the society toward new fashion
trends.
The buying and consumption patterns are highly influenced by psychographic,
demographic, and behavioral dimensions, where it is easier for marketers to reach and
capture the rural markets as compare to past.
Socio-economic conditions and cultural factors are important in understating the
consumer, but rural psychology has significant role to play in segmenting and
targeting in this sector, particularly the personality traits of rural consumers need to be
studied in real environmental perspective.
Research on innovative consumer behavior started in the late 1950s (Goldsmith &
Foxall, 2003). Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) in their research conceptualize
innovativeness as the extent to which a person is comparatively quick in adopting new
concepts than the common individuals in his/her related groups. Whereas some
researchers e.g., Foxall (2003) illustrate personality trait (referred as global
innovativeness) which measures an individual’s enthusiasm to try new items.
The same concept has been named as life innovativeness by Roehrich (2004) which
says that actually it as the aptitude of persons to introduce innovation in their lives.
16
Other trait of the personality selected for this study is dogmatism, this trait also been
explained from different dimensions but theme of the trait is visualized relatively
same. For example, Kuehnen, Hannover, and Schubert (2001); Markus and Kitayama
(1991) view dogmatism as a concept determined by a person that may include;
psychological exposure of an individual’s traits, approaches, and likes and dislikes and
that is associated with the inspiration to sustain undue social pressure, and wants to be
self-sufficient. On the contrary, a mutually dependent ideology includes;
psychological demonstrations of social customs, values, and ethics.
Social Character is measured by two dimensions e.g., inner (self)-directedness and
other (Social)-directedness, Since Inner- directedness let knows that the person is
mostly directed by his/her ‘inner values’ and does not believing the beliefs of others
while considering new products to purchase; on the contrary consumers those are other
directed have a propensity toward the recommendations of other persons. Hence it can
be said that inner-directed persons are relatively not easy to convince and motivate,
thus; it seems very challenging for marketers to motivate/persuade such customers in
comparisons of other directed customers, because other-directed consumers mostly
prefer the products those are widely acceptable and recognized by others. Final
construct of this study is the need for uniqueness, this trait refers that an in individual
wants to be unique or different of common social setup and norms. Since
Tian, Bearden and Hunter (2001) observed that prior research has investigated that
consumers’ need for uniqueness is more specific than simply the need for
individualization, and it is different from independence. Furthermore consumers’ need for
uniqueness reproduces enhancement process of self-image and a social image, the purpose
is to be recognized in society through a product usage or possessions.
1.3. The aims of the research
The aim and purpose of this research is to identify with and evaluate the degree of
“Consumer innovativeness, Dogmatism, Social character, and need for uniqueness”
while adopting a new clothing and fashion product(s) among the rural consumers.
17
Further to understand consumer diversity with reference to consumer personality
traits, particularly the levels of innovativeness and dogmatism in rural market.
Furthermore to know the degree of inner-directedness and other-directedness in
consumer response and to measure the extent of the need for uniqueness in a person
(rural area consumer) influencing on new product adoption.
1.4. Structure of Thesis
This study is following the pattern as; Chapter 1 is about the introduction, including an
overview, theoretical background, and the aims of research. In Chapter 2, the literature
has been reviewed on new product adoption, personality traits for example; “consumer
innovativeness, dogmatism, social character, and need for uniqueness”, In chapter 3
conceptual framework and hypotheses are discussed, chapter 4is about the research
methodology adopted in this study which includes; method of data collection, content
validity of research instrument, development of new product adoption scale,
development of scale for constructs in the model, and data collection, Chapter 5
contains; the results and statistical analysis of each construct in the study including
reliability of constructs, finally Chapter 6 includes discussions on influence of
personality traits, limitations of the study, managerial implication, future research
directions, and the conclusion The structure of the study is followed by references and
appendices.
18
CHAPTER – 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. New-Product Adoption Behavior
The behavior of an individual while buying, using, and adopting a regular product may
be observed different from the new product (for a specific consumer). Since prior
research postulates that the behavior, response and reaction of consumers could be
represented in numerous ways by different consumers at times and places. Rogers and
Shoemaker (1971); Im, Bayus, and Mason (2003) described new-product adoption
behavior by arguing that it is the extent to which a consumer is adopting an innovative
product before than others in his society or groups. Famous researchers (e.g., Foxall
1988, 1995; Midgley and Dowling 1978; Robertson and Myers 1969; Rogers 1995)
also investigated that the researchers in this regard have used different type measures
to know the possible behavior of a consumer while adopting a new product, among
from them cross-sectional method is one that is used in a situation where multiple
products are examined in a given product category. Midgley and Dowling (1978)
argue that cross-sectional process/method is a useful measure of consumer behavior
while adopting a new product, this method creates fewer problems than a more direct
measure of adoption timing, possible problems of respondents may be; recall
problem, reliability problem, validity problem, and generalizability problem.
Robertson (1971) supported the same notion and find that the consumers whose usual
19
time to adopt is shorter have a propensity to adopt a new and innovative product at
higher degree or quantity as compare to the consumers adoption time is longer.
Midgley and Dowling (1978) recommended the contingency framework which has
been observed by Im, Bayus, and Mason (2003), in their experiments they find the
relationship among consumer innovativeness (innate), characteristics of person, and
consumer adoption behavior regarding new-product purchase, in addition to the
sensible influence of personal characteristics on the relationship between consumer
innovativeness (innate) and adoption behavior for new product.
Im, Bayus, and Mason (2003) have explored that age and income in addition to
(innate) consumer innovativeness, are positively associated to the adoption of new
consumer products. However other researchers like; Dickerson and Gentry (1983);
Lahay and Kinnear (1981); Martinex et al., (1998); Ostlund (1974); Summers (1971)
in their research find that these results seem commonly reliable and linked with prior
research where personal characteristics and predispositions were used to explain the
behavior toward adoption of new product.
2.2. New Product adoption (Process)
A product adoption model was developed by Rogers (1962) which has been referred
by Kotler (2008) also, this model is consisting of five stages like; (1) awareness,
(2) interest, (3) evaluation, (4) trial and (5) adoption.
Fig; 2.1
Rogers (1962) introduced New Product Adoption Model (Persuasion model) of
adoption process (persuasion) which includes five factors as; complexity, observability
(of an innovation), compatibility, trial ability and relative advantage, that may possibly
affect the adoption of an innovation.
20
Fig; 2.2
There are three dimensions of Product innovativeness e.g., product newness to
customers), new product uniqueness, and product newness to the firm.
Following these notions, Robertson (1971) recommended AIDA model which stands
for ‘Attention, Interest, Desire and Action’. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) in their
research categorized the adoption process as knowledge stage, persuasion stage,
decision stage and confirmation stage.
In this perspective Rogers (2003) classified the adoption process containing of five
basic stages like; ‘knowledge of innovation, persuasion, judgment, execution, and
confirmation’. Rogers (2003) further argued that the research on adoption of new
product (innovations) was huge research areas which have focused on different
subjects for example the characteristics of innovation, the rate of adopting an
innovative product, influence of the social group, and also to find the characteristics of
the innovation adopter.
21
Fig; 2.3
Source: “Strategic Marketing: Theory and Applications for competitive advantage
Oxford University Press Southern Africa (pty) Ltd. 2009”.
New product adoption is not a simple buying decision process but it is a complex one,
which contains various stages. According to Wilton and Pessemier (1981) that all the
way through this decision process consumer gain knowledge about the innovation, its
cost and related advantages and disadvantages. By having this knowledge, consumer’s
further hold onward, suspend, or leave the decision to adopt. When the product under
consideration matches the consumer’s willingness and preferences, the possible result
may be an adoption, and if consideration does not match the consumer’s willingness
and preferences the possible action may be non-adoption. Prior research confirms that
a large number of newly introduced products have failed or did not occupy a place in
market because of non-adoption behavior. (Boulding et al., 1997; Crawford, 1977).
According to Gourville (2004) if we look into the common and dominant reasons or
causes of new product failure, these may be; consumer unawareness of the innovation,
lack of knowledge, less or no perceived value, and resistive behavior (Ram and Sheth,
22
1989). On the other hand, some individuals may be completely well known of the new
product, however might be cautious in making ultimate decision to adopt the product
or he/she can decide to refuse the modernization. Thus the non adoption decision
toward an innovation may be an active or a passive that may take place at any stage of
new product adoption process. Group of consumers may show their non-adoption
behavior because of heterogeneity. Though, this heterogeneity has caught relatively
little attention in present marketing research, for the reason that consumer (product)
adoption is characteristically replicated as a single bi-polar variable. Many
investigations generally evaluate non-adoption with adoption, trial, or intention, when
some researchers emphasize the chronological stages in the new product adoption
process.
In this connection Gourville (2004) investigated that it has not been largely recognized
that; how consumers are passing through the new adoption process?, and which factors
push or hold back advancement of consumer during the different decision stages of
the adoption process.
Prior research categorically considers the ‘drivers of innovation decision’ that these
are likewise important in each stage. However, past research provides little evidence
which may support this implied postulation. In contrast, the impact of drivers may
possibly be different throughout the stages, for example, consumers may alter their
importance of characteristics considered in decision to buy a new product. Since,
consideration takes a little time in making a final decision to adopt a new product, then
the consumers may learn about the features of the new product, may know about
advantages and disadvantages of the product, and during consideration a consumer
may hold different weights for the characteristics of a product than previous weights
(Olshavsky and Spreng, 1996).
Rogers, (2003; Wilton and Pessemier, (1981) argue that consumers are processing
different levels of information about the new product that is depending on the stage of
adoption process, if a consumer perceptions goes to change consumers may break,
refuse or faster the new product adoption.
23
2.2.1. Stages of Adoption
Various researchers Boyd and Mason (1999); Olshavsky and Spreng (1996);
Robertson (1971); Rogers (2003) are of the opinion that “
Adoption of new product takes place through a decision process consisting of a
number of stages, whereby the movement from one stage to other showing a
considerable action of mind. Other researchers e.g., Labay and Kinnear (1981);
Manning, Bearden, and Madden (1995); Veryzer (1998) recognizing this notion and
further testifying that this general concept has been widely accepted various by the
researchers but very minute literature is available which absolutely conceptualizes new
product adoption as a process. Large amount multi-stage empirical studies only
distinguish two chronologically sequenced stages. The well-known models are;
1. The adoption process model (Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross, 1992;
Rogers, 2003),
2. The AIDA model (Ferrell and Hartline, 1998; Smith and Swinyard, 1982),
3. The hierarchy-of-effects model (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961),
4. The communications model (Boyd and Mason, 1999). These all theory
determined models presuppose several phases in the adoption process. These
models are portrayed in the table given below.
Table No. 2.1
Adoption Processes models
(The table showing all succeeding stages for each adoption process model)
24
The mental stages depicted in Table No. 2.1 following different decision models or
processes, as Robertson (1976) pointed out that the cognitive stage is the opening
point to approach a new product, when the consumers are processing with high
cognition follow a model of ‘awareness, knowledge, attitude formation, trial and
adoption’, and with low cognitive processing, they are passing through the same stages
but in a different sequence, like; ‘awareness, trial, attitude formation, and adoption’.
Rogers (1962) name the cognitive stage as ‘awareness stage’, where the consumer
going to be aware of availability of the newly introduced product, but may lack
corresponding information. Awareness stage is different from the interest. The interest
is corresponding to anything that stimulates the inquisitiveness of a person; whenever
awareness is relating to consumer understanding about a new product. A same
explanation of this stage has been noticed in other decision models, while ‘the
hierarchy of effects model’ and ‘the communications model’ also differentiate between
awareness and the reaction of consumer.
At the ‘affective stage’ the consumer assesses the new product under consideration,
and shapes a further specific attitude about the product.
The ‘behavior stage’ is the stage where the consumer actually taking an action. Past
research differentiates these kinds of behavior about new product, ‘trial, adoption, and
regular usage’. Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) investigated that to get real experience
consumer examines the new product during trial. Trial stage is mostly considered as
vital stage because it help consumers in forming perceptions about new product
based on personal experience; if trial is successful it is most likely to adopt fully or
regularly. This concept has been extensively adopted by marketers to persuade
consumers to adopt and use a new product, as trial may spell out advantages of an
innovation and ease of usage.
Some times on the basis of the level of cognitive processing trial comes first to
evaluation stage of the new product adoption process
25
Tornatzky and Klein (1982) identified the highly leading factors; e.g., relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, and uncertainty. Rogers (2003) further
explained these factors, as; that relative advantage is concerned to the inherent value
offered by the innovation as compare to formal product, where as Compatibility is the
extent to which the innovation is matching the needs, life style, and values of the
adopter, whenever Complexity is referred as that how the innovation is beneficial and
simple to adopt, while Uncertainty is conceptualized as the perceived fear of negative
consequences of new product adoption.
Fig., 2.4
Source: Willem and Geleen ‘essays on new product adoption and diffusion’ no. 423 (2008)
Tinbergen Institute Research Series
Many products do not permit the trial, or not appropriate for trial; for this reason some
buyers may decide to skip the trial stage, in order to carry on the adoption decision
process they jump from awareness stage to evaluation stage. If some consumers
consider the trial as an opportunity they may use trial stage to gain more knowledge
regarding the product. Though, trial is just to test the product and not to adopt at this
occasion. The primary purpose of trial is to get understanding or to test the product,
for example; the power of a new battery. Shoemaker and Shoaf (1975) investigated
that why consumers purchase in little quantity during trial that does not happens at
adoption stage. Gielens and Steenkamp (2007) identified that purchases during trial
26
are more appropriate and significant though later purchases are representing the eternal
success.
2.2.2. Innovation Adoption Process
Rogers (1995) keep apart the consumers into five categories according to the
propensity of adopting a new product. These sequential adoption categories were
named as; innovators (those adopt innovation), early adopters (those adopt innovation
after innovators) next was early majority and late majority followed by laggards (those
adopt innovations in last).
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) recommended the classes or categories of adopters on
the basis of rate of their adoption, the classes has been named as; innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.
Fig; 2.5
Source: Rogers and Shoemaker (1971)
The process starts with the information of the existence of an innovation, which could
be motivated by expression and desires, along with other factors. The persuasion
which was second phase of innovation adoption process seems fit for the factors that
could affect adoption rate.
27
It is recognized that the model of Rogers proposes constructive dimensions (the five
dimensions of persuasion) which are the main driving forces which are; complexity,
compatibility, observability, trialability, and relative advantage.
2.2.3. Reasons for no or slow adoption
In book titled “Strategic Marketing: Theory and Applications for competitive
advantage”, Oxford University Press Southern Africa (pty) Ltd. 2009, some reasons
for no or slow adoption of a product are mentioned as;
• Customers do not need the new product or service
• Customers can not afford the new product
• The new product is not widely available
• Customers do not know how to use the new product
• Customers are satisfied with existing alternatives
• Products are less observable
• Customers are skeptical about the new product’s performance
• Customers are not able to try or sample products
• Customer does not want to incur switching costs
• More than one decision-maker is involved in the purchase decision.
2.3. Fashion
Fashion is defined by Barnard, 2002; King and Ring (1980) as a combination of style
and taste, and often refers to clothing and apparel items. The diffusion of fashion is
defined as the movement of a fashion from its point of origin, to public acceptance
(King and Ring, 1980). Through this process, the fashion is adopted by various
adopter categories in the social system, and eventually declines in acceptance (Rogers,
1995; Sharma, 2009).
2.3.1. The Dimensions of Fashion
Fashion is a combination of style and taste, and often refers to clothing and apparel
items (Barnard, 2002; King and Ring, 1980). It mainly serves as a form of expression
that communicates tastes and lifestyles that incorporate adornment objects and dress
(Barnard, 2002; Polhemus and Proctor, 1978; Sproles, 1974). The most popular usage
28
of fashion is in the context of clothing, and fashion is also apparent in a wide variety
of other contexts such as architecture, furniture and automobiles (King and Ring,
1980). Two dimensions unfold the concept of fashion: the fashion object and the
fashion process (King and Ring, 1980).
The first dimension of fashion is the fashion object. In a broad context, the fashion
object could be used to describe an array of physical entities, such as paintings,
sculpture, or other forms of visual art (Eckman and Wagner, 1995). From this
perspective, the fashion object is regarded as a stand-alone object. In the context of
fashion, the fashion object refers to a particular dress or style, and has the aesthetic
quality of being worn on the human body (Eckman and Wagner, 1995; King and Ring,
1980). Multiple motives have been ascribed to fashionable dress, such as the aesthetic
motive behind the fashion object (Sproles, 1979, 1981). In fashion consumption, the
fashion object is used to enhance physical attractiveness, and for personal expression
(Eckman and Wagner, 1995). Several characteristics mark the definition of a fashion
object or style, as; it must possess differential characteristics from other products;
these characteristics must be perceivable; the differential characteristics must be
visually or verbally communicable; and it must be operationally measurable (King and
Ring, 1980).
Ideally, the goal is to track the development of the fashion object, in order to influence
the adoption or rejection by individuals in the social system (King and Ring, 1980).
The fashion process, on the other hand, is the potential movement of a fashion from its
point of origination to public acceptance, and is characterized by the introduction of
the fashion innovation; the adoption by fashion leaders; the diffusion of the fashion
object throughout the social system; and the eventual decline in acceptance (King and
Ring, 1980; Reynolds, 1968). Cholachatpinyo, Padgett, Cocker and Fletcher, 2002;
Keiser and Garner, 2003; King and Ring, (1980) describe that the fashion process
describes the process by which a fashion moves from its point of origination to public
acceptance, and is characterized by various stages, such as;
1. The introduction of a fashion innovation.
2. Its fashion leaders.
3. The diffusion of the fashion throughout the social system.
29
4. The eventual decline in acceptance of the fashion object.
Within these stages, persons are categorized according to their likelihood to adopt the
innovation at a specific time.
Eventually, the goal of the fashion process is to follow the development of a style, in
order to influence the adoption or rejection thereof (King and Ring, 1980). Through
the adoption of a fashion, individuals participate in a series of interdependent activities
that depict symbolic statements to others within a social system (Miller, McIntyre and
Mantrala, 1993). A widely used framework in fashion adoption and diffusion is
Roger’s (1983), Model of Innovation Diffusion (Beaudoin, Lachance and Robitaille,
2003; Behling, 1992; Hirschman and Adcock, 1987).
2.3.2. Newness of Fashion and Cloths
The newness of clothes are drawn from two features, i.e.; tangible and intangible. In
case of technologically oriented new products the importance is given to the tangible
attributes, on the other hand during assessment of newness of clothing items intangible
attributes appear to play a more important role. Physical condition as a tangible
ingredient of new clothing refers to the stuff from which the product is made.
Coskuner and Sandikci (2004) argue that until the cloths or dresses are not ragged, or
tarnished it is considered as ‘new’, some time opinion leaders and reference groups
suggest clothes containing latest technical advantages are deemed as new.
Coskuner and Sandikci (2004) recognized two intangible ingredients of newness;
‘social visibility’ and ‘fashion’.
Furthermore, Coskuner and Sandikci (2004) identified that social visibility is the
extent how other persons are examining the cloths. Furthermore the cloths can be
considered as new until those are socially significant apart from its time of purchase.
It is also assumed that when the cloths are worn in any gathering, soon after the cloths
are considered as not new, whenever the same cloths in another gathering may be
viewed as new.
30
Our society reflects some social classes and fashion and clothing is considered as
strong and significant mean to express their class, group (Particularly upper and upper
middle) they reflect their social distinctions, dignity, and supremacy in the given
society. (Marx, 1954).
Batterberry (1977); Hollander (1980); Konig (1973) investigated that socially it has
been observed that since the years, among from other elements and possessions the
cloths were also used for showing their nobility and competitive tool in social setup.
Whenever; Veblen (1899) recognized that clothes give support to upper classes to
differentiate themselves from the lower ones. Upper class establish and representing
their superiority through modern or classic exposure through clothing.
2.3.3. Fashion Adoption
Fashion adoption primarily refers to the adoption of a fashion over time, via a series of
different stages (Goldsmith and Reinecke, 1992). Within a broader framework, the
classical model used to measure adoption, is innovation diffusion (Gatignon and
Robertson, 1985; Pinuel, 1992).
2.3.4. Adoption Categories
Rogers (2005) suggested that the innovation adoption process is constituted by some
categories of the adopters, for example; innovators, early adopters, early majority, late
majority, and laggards.
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) pointed out in their research that innovators are referred
as the customers those are taking bold steps and trying before others to adopt new
concepts, these are followed by the individuals known as early adopters, then next
category of the adopters is said as the early majority a good number of consumers who
adopt an innovation before the average persons in a given society, whereas the late
majority is very reluctant to accept the innovation do not consider to adopt an
innovation until a greater part of the people had adopted, lastly, the laggards are
deemed as the confused consumers who adopt new products at last when common
people are using such products, where this product is no more new one.
Adopter categories that were swap among products were difficult to establish. Rogers
and Shoemaker (1971) assumed that a rural consumer e.g., farmer could be an early
31
adopter in farming applications but it may laggard in case of recreational product
adoption.
In this perspective Wilkening, Tully, and Presson (1962) identified that rural
psychology is typical in nature and where biophysical, economic, social, cultural and
psychological factors affected the perception of product attributes and the rate of
adoption of farm practices. Earlier, Gross and Taves (1952) had pointed out that there
were certain economic, social and cultural traits that discerned the different adopter
categories, and researchers concluded that these traits significantly influencing the
product perception. This was noted that innovators had affordable risk capital; price
was not important to innovators as compared to late majority or laggard.
2.3.4.1. Fashion Innovators
The fashion innovators are referred to as fashion leaders, and are defined as those who
are most interested in fashion compared to others, and mostly they initiate to adopt a
new product (Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006). Kang and Park-Poaps (2010) argue
that fashion innovators pave the way and guide the system in fashion.
An indisputable concept in fashion studies is the ability of fashion innovators to serve
as fashion opinion leaders (Goldsmith and Stith, 1992; Goldsmith, 1998). In addition,
fashion innovators are considered as more self-assured with their own experience,
initiate the adoption of new fashions, and moreover , they try to influence other
inviduals to buy new products (Greenberg, Lumpkin and Bruner, 1982; Kaiser, 1990;
Polegato and Wall, 1980; Schrank and Guilmore, 1973). Fashion innovators have
more access to information than other adopter groups, hence, are earlier adopters of
new fashions, and are more actively involved in social activities (Gam, 2009). In other
studies (e.g., Cholachatpinyo et al., 2002; Rogers, 2005) it was found that the early
adopters have a propensity to be adventurous, bold and risk taker, whereas due to keen
interest in new concepts may direct them out of local community toward member of
global community. In this connection Rogers (2005) see innovators as the hub of
launching and generating new products of fashion, and play the role of a gatekeeper in
the stream of new thoughts and concepts into a system.
32
2.3.4.2. Early Adopters
Prior research (e.g., Adcock, Hirschman and Goldstucker, 1977; Bell, 1963; Feldman
and Armstrong, 1975; Kegerries and Engel, 1969; Labay and Kinnear, 1981;
Plummer, 1971; Robertson, 1971; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; Rogers and Stanfield,
1968) postulate that early adopters are higher educated, prosperous, and higher
occupation rank than the non-adopters. Classically fashion diffuses from innovators
and opinion leaders to early fashion adopters, and then it reaches at the peak stage
where a large number of consumers are adopting the fashion (Cholachatpinyo et. al.,
2002). Rogers (2005) concluded that early adopter persons are more assimilated into
the confined social system as compare to innovators, and they are strongly able to be
opinion leader.
The category of adopter attempts to be socially acceptable through their observation of
what deems to be fashionable, and is generally sought as missionaries for speeding the
diffusion process (Cholachatpinyo et al., 2002; Rogers, 2005). Bertandias and
Goldsmith (2006); Horridge and Richards (1984); and Park and Burns ( 2005) are of
the view that spending less money on apparel products, the fashion followers are less
likely to spend impulsively, and are more likely to purchase items for functional
values, rather than for fashionableness. Whenever Rogers (2005) assume that the early
adopters are respected by their peers, and representing as role models for many other
members of the social system.
2.3.4.3. Early Majority
The early majority is the third category of adopter, where a person is adopting new
concepts and products just before the common member in the social system. Although
they continuously interrelate with their peers, they rarely grasp positions of opinion
leadership (Rogers, 2005), moreover category of early majority is considered as the
largest category than the other categories of adopter and this category is assumed an
essential connection between early adopters and as well as late adopters. A main
driving force behind their adoption is to obtain social recognition from peers
(Karpova, 2005). Cholachatpinyo et al. (2002) find they are highly influenced by the
media and marketing strategies, and have great faith in the advice they receive from
stores.
33
2.3.4.4. Late Majority
The fourth category of fashion adopters is the ‘late majority’ this category adopters
adopting innovation or new ideas and products just later than the common individual,
they hold 33% approximately of a give social system (Rogers, 2005). The members of
this category are not as financially sound as earlier categories of adopters. (Karpova,
2005). Michon, Yu, Smith and Chebat (2007) in their research pointed out that
females that form part of this adopter category have a tendency to be more emotional,
hence their purchase behaviors are influenced by mood.
Consequently, this group of consumers is more likely to purchase products for
hedonistic experiences (Hawkins and Mothersbaugh, 2010). “A major driving force
for adoption among the members in this category is peer pressure, and the late
majority will only consider adoption once most of the others in the system have
adopted the new idea” (Rogers, 2005).
2.3.4.5. Laggards
According to Rogers (2005) laggards are the consumers those adopt the innovation in
last in a given social system, and are no more opinion leaders. Ultimately the number
of adopters decline to the stage, where the late adopters are called the ‘laggards’.
Laggards may not have interest in fashion and fashion related stuff, and are little
interested in social gatherings (Karpora, 2005). Rogers (2005) find that many are
isolates in their social systems, and they may likely to be doubtful of new ideas and
products, and have limited resources. Moreover, laggards are cautious regarding new
knowledge and are less concerned with brand names (Smith, 2005).
Every fashion has a life-span that is depicted through the fashion cycle, and it is
imperative for trend forecasters to follow the acceptance and rejection of fashion
trends (Keiser and Garner, 2003).
2.4. Consumer Personality
Personality as a general phenomenon can be viewed fron different angles, since it can
be defined from various dimensions. B. Lahey (2001) defines it as combination of all
the distinctive ways of doing something, judgment, and emotions, since the individual
is considered as a unique. Every person is different from other persons not only with
34
reference to the physical characteristics, but also in type of a personality, which is an
important factor that influence on behavior of a consumer in buying decision.
Personality of person strongly influence on the consumer in making a decision to
purchase as; what, when, from where and how much to purchase (Sarker, Bose, Palit,
and, Haque, 2013). Moreover they believe most of researchers think an attitude of a
consumer orient him/ her toward a particular purchase, since an attitude is combination
of beliefs, thoughts and ideas of a person.
Schiffman and Kanuk (2008) argue that every successful marketer is supposed to
know the consumer preferences, buying habits, possible responses toward an offering.
Consumer life styles are reproduced in individuals’ personalities and beliefs. Therefore
it is very much essential to learn that on which parameters the life-style is based.
Every person’s life style can be observed by his /her activities (in which he is
involved), interest (habits and preferences) and opinions (feeling and thoughts).
To analyze the lifestyle of a consumer that is reflected in one’s activities, his/her
interests and as well as opinions held, could be measured through a technique called
‘psychographic method’ (Bhasin. H., 2006).
2.4.1. Theories of Personality
Past research has developed moderately very limited theories of personality;
researchers’ thoughts depict their own understanding of personality traits. Some of the
key theories are;
1. Neo-Freudian Theory
2. Socio psychoanalytic Theory
3. Gestalt Theory
4. Stimulus Response theory
5. Cognitive theory
6. Trait Theory
Neo-Freudian theory: This theory assumes that the structure and development of
personality primarily depends on social relationships. Alfred Adler highly focused on
the individual efforts to prevail over feelings of inferiority for example; ‘by struggling
for superiority’. The Neo- Freudian theory mostly been used primarily to portray the
35
person who leave the psychoanalytic society and subsequently shaped their own
schools of thought. Many marketers follow spontaneously few of the neo-Freudian
theories. For instance, marketers who present their products or services in a market as
these products would provide a chance of belongingness or would be appreciated by
others in a social group would appear to be directed by classification of the isolated
individual (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2008).
Trait Theory: To study about personality trait theory portrays an approach referred as
‘quantitative approach’. Trait theory recommends that personality of a person is
combination of definite tendency attributes, those are referred as ‘traits’. A trait can be
defined as any distinctive, comparatively lasting approach in which an individual
differs from another individual. According to trait theory ‘personality’ of an individual
can represent one or more traits like; compulsiveness, gregariousness, dogmatism,
ambitiousness, authoritarianism, introversion, extroversion, ethnocentrism,
competitiveness, and aggressiveness. Schiffman and Kanuk (2008) investigated that it
seems more rational to anticipate personality to be connected to a question that how
customers are making purchase decision to own a product category rather than a
particular brand in given category.
Big Five Model: Big Five Model of McCrae and Costa (1990) The Big Five Model
categorizes personality according to five dimensions, namely; neuroticism,
extroversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Mulaynegara et al.,
2007). The first dimension ‘neuroticism’ refers to the inclination to show negative
sentimental conditions, a person experiencing high neuroticism usually showing
anxiety, annoyance, fault and despair. (Larson and Sachau. 2008). The second
dimension ‘extroversion’ reproduces an individual’s wish and probability of to be
social, vigorous, happy, and optimist (Larson and Sacha, 2008). Openness portrays the
persons who looking for exploration of the new and has a preference for assortment
(Larson and Sachau. 2008). Whereas the fourth dimension ‘agreeableness’ is relating
to the inspiration to maintain constructive relations with others (Digman,1997;
Wiggens and Trapnell, 1997). The fifth dimension ‘conscientiousness’ is the extent of
determination and motivation of a person toward a goal-directed behavior.
Mulaynegara et al., (2007); Bakewell Mitchell and Rothwell (2006) argue that within
36
the framework of personality, ‘fashion consciousness’ is regarded as an influential
factor on fashion adoption.
2.5. Consumer innovativeness
Prior research and present researchers define ‘consumer innovativeness’ in their own
ways. Majority of the researchers have look into harmony of early adopters. Examine
the concept of Cotte and Wood (2004) which says that consumer innovativeness is
referred as the inclination to eagerly hold change and wants to try new products, or it
is the degree or level to which a person is comparatively adopting an innovation earlier
than other individuals in his social group. (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971), and
Roehrich (2004) are commenting in a way that when a consumer is purchasing a new
product more frequently and promptly than other consumers is said as innovative
consumer. Many researchers have look at innovativeness as a ‘personality construct’.
Such as; Midgley and Dowling (1978) found that consumer innovativeness is known
as the underlying personality trait holding preference for new and unusual experiences.
In the literature of consumer innovativeness there are certain contradictions in
findings. Hirunyawipada and Paswan (2006) proposed a pecking order perspective of
consumer innovativeness; the global perspective (personal trait); the domain-specific
perspective (intently defined trait toward a product category); and the innovative
behavior. Global innovativeness is a personality trait at the highest level of construct
and independent of the sphere of influence or a particular product category. Whereas
many researchers have conceptualized global innovativeness trait as a single construct.
On the other hand some researchers (i.e. Venkatraman and Price, 1990) imagine it to
be multidimensional, including sensory and cognitive traits. Cognitive innovative
consumers are stimulated to inspire the mind by searching new experiences or making
valiant decisions. Some analysts argue that cognitive innovators take pleasure in
thinking, problem solving, mystifying over issues and other intellectual efforts, and
they try to find new knowledge that inspire these psychological activities. On the other
hand sensory innovativeness is referred as the inclination toward new experiences that
inspire the intelligence. Hirschman (1984) and Zuckerman, (1979) comment these
37
experiences as they include internally generated new experiences such as fantasy and
daydreaming and externally available new thrilling and adventurous activities.
Some innovative individuals may have a preference for a cognitive stimulation or
sensory stimulation; however others may look for both stimulations (Hirschman, 1984;
Venkatraman and MacInnis, 1985).
As distinguishing cognitive from sensory it is postulated that the sensory consumers
are more likely younger and males as well, on the contrary cognitive consumers are
considered as to be older and more educated (Hirschman, 1984; Zuckerman, 1979;
Venkatraman and Price, 1990). Furthermore Hirschman (1984; Venkatraman and
MacInnis (1985) argue that cognitive consumers are more interested in different types
of media, closely monitoring various ads in electronic and print media, and trying to
purchase a new thing. When forming attitudes, different types of appeals are likely to
influence the attitudes of cognitive and non-cognitive innovators differently (Cacioppo
et al., 1986).
Venkatraman and Price (1990) investigated that cognitive innovators may respond
positively toward the logical or rational appeal oriented ads containing facts and more
descriptions of the product attributes (tangible aspects) better than emotional appeal
oriented ads which may be more evaluative (intangible aspects), whenever, sensory
innovator(consumers) are tend to evaluate the products attributes may be influenced by
and benefits holistically, since the decisions of cognitive innovators decisions are
testing, uniqueness and monetary risk.
The available literature on consumer innovativeness tells that cognitive and sensory
consumers are different from ethnic backgrounds, demographic profiles, information
search behaviors, and the way of attitude formation perspectives. Hirschman (1980)
investigated some points of differences and argued that the inclinations of cognitive
and sensory innovativeness are very important in the examining the style of decision
making. This view has been supported by Venkatraman and Price (1990), by stating
that “cognitive and sensory dimensions of innovativeness are perceived as different at
broad generalizable levels of consumer behavior, such as preferences for mental and
sensory stimulation, and at very specific levels of consumer decision making, such as;
preferred information-processing mode”.
38
Innovative consumers are generally assumed as the consumers those are very open to
new concepts and thoughts and mostly initiator in making decision to purchase a new
product. Innovativeness is the core trait that portrays a consumer’s willingness to try
new products.
When companies are introducing a new brand or brand extensions they cannot deny
the importance of this trait in understanding the consumer personality and their buying
preferences because it is a key factor in the consumer’s likelihood to try the new
product.
Rocherich (2004) investigated that people which are generally ‘innovative’ can be
verified by the domain of product. Chao, C.W., Reid, M., and Mavondo, F.T. (2012)
holding a positive and significant relationship between domain specific innovativeness
and really new product adoption, which shows that consumers who have a high level
of domain specific innovativeness and a stronger connection to certain product
categories tend to own more really new products and adopt earlier than other potential
consumers. Chao, C.W., Reid, M., and Mavondo, F.T. (2012) research verifying
previous studies of Citrin et al. (2000); Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) and
recommended that researchers need to be focused on product domains or categories
when asking consumers about their product purchasing and product adoption
behaviors rather than to be generalized.
Rogers & Shoemaker (1971) concluded that “At the product level, research is
primarily concerned with examining product-related factors affecting the acceptance
of an innovation-an idea perceived as new by the individual without taking into
consideration behavioral and perceptual characteristics of the individual consumer”.
On the other hand Coskuner and Sandikci (2004) find a level named; ‘individual
level’, at this level researchers focus on psychographic and demographic traits that
make an individual more expert to adopt new products. In relation to new product
adoption innovativeness is the most studied among psychographic traits.
Wang, Dacko, and Gad (2008), find in their research that “consumer innovativeness
does not affect perceived cost, but it leads to greater perceived benefit and greater
adoption intention, and when considering the possible adoption of a new product or
service, cost considerations are important only if the adoption is desirable (i.e. high
39
level of benefit), but benefit considerations remains important whether cost is high or
low”.
Consumer innovativeness (adoption of new things) is the propensity to buy new
products usually and more immediately than common individuals (Midgley and
Dowling, 1978). Firm innovativeness (creation of newness) representing a marketer’s
ability to create and introduce new products before other competitors. (Hurley and
Hult, 1998).
2.5.1. Product Innovativeness
Product innovativeness or “possession of newness is the degree of newness of a
product” (Daneels and Kleinsmith, 2001). Tan and McAloone (2008) in their paper
investigated the product innovativeness that could not be evaluated on an absolute
scale, but should be seen in relation to existing products.
Innovation came in many forms. Four areas of innovation which to a certain extent
were interlinked;
• Product innovation: Any changes in products / services offered by the organization
• Process innovation: Any changes in the methods of creation and delivery
• Position innovation: Any contextual changes in introduction of product or services
• Paradigm innovation: Any changes in psychological modes
Ansoff (1957) identified three categories for product innovativeness which was the
combination of product and market with existing and new perspective as;
1. Incrementally new product that is referred as incremental innovation which deliver
improved performance and greater perceived value.
2. Moderately innovative products or substantial innovation, when the products are
significantly new for example; “product extensions”.
3. Really or radically new products referred as transformational innovation that is
totally new products.
Many researchers adapted Ansoff’s typology in researches in different research
frames. Cooper (1979) identified three dimensions for product innovativeness concept
as newness to the firm, Product uniqueness, and Product superiority.
40
2.5.2. Innovativeness and time of adoption
Innovativeness and time of adoption is an important dimension of adoptability. With
reference to time of adoption perspective, Midgley and Dowling (1978) narrated as;
“What is observable is the act and time of adoption or purchase of a new product.
Innovativeness itself is a hypothetical construct postulated to explain and/or predict
such observable phenomena, but existing only in the mind of the investigator and at a
higher level of abstraction”
Yet there are controversies on the meaning and definition of innovativeness. It may be
described as “early purchase of a new product” (Cestre, 1996), (Steenkamp et al.,
1999) view as; “as well as a tendency to be attracted by new products”. Following the
distinction between actualized and innate innovativeness e.g., Midgley and Dowling
(1978), majority of researchers consider innovativeness as a trait, the nature of which
is still to be known, (Roehrich, 2004).
2.5.3. Actualized innovativeness
Actualized innovativeness is referred as the definite getting hold of new products,
concepts, experience, and ideas. (Hirschman, 1980; Midgley and Dowling, 1978).
Following behavioral point of view, new-product adoption behavior can be viewed as
the speed or extent to which consumer adopts the innovations before other persons in
his/ her community or class. (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Empirically, past
researchers were using a variety of tortuous procedures of this behavior, as; ‘the
quantity of products possessed’ (e.g., Foxall, 1988, 1995; Rogers, 1995), ‘possession
of a specific product’ (e.g., Dickerson and Gentry, 1983; Labay and Kinnear, 1981),
‘intentions of purchase’ (e.g., Holak and Lehmann, 1990), and the time incurred on
adopting a specific product’ (e.g., Midgley and Dowling ,1993; Rogers and
shoemaker, 1971).
2.5.4. Innate Consumer Innovativeness
Innate consumer innovativeness is defined as a “predisposition to buy new and
different products and brands rather than remain with previous choices and consumer
patterns” (Steenkamp et al., 1999).
41
Prior researches (e.g., Foxal11995; Manning et al. 1995; Midgley and Dowling 1993),
Im, Bayus, and Mason (2003) suggesting that innate innovativeness persuading a
particular behavior toward new-product adoption, moreover they discovered the
significant and positive affect of innate innovativeness on new-product adoption
behavior, and find some innovative predispositioned youngers with high income are
more likely to adopt new products increasingly.
According to Kirton (1976) to identify the innovative characteristics of persons the
psychologists recognized for example ‘innovative predisposition’ (Midgley and
Dowling,1993) and ‘innate innovativeness’ (Hirschman, 1980). Whenever (Goldsmith
and Hofacker, 1991; Goldsmith et al. 1995) consider (this generalized personality)
trait as ‘global innovativeness’ and distinguish it from ‘domain-specific
innovativeness’ that can be applied to a specific product category. Foxal (1988);
Kirto,(1976); Midgley and Dowling (1978) investigated that “Researchers in
marketing have also focused on this generalized perspective of innovativeness, which
segments consumer innovators on the basis of their individual personality and
cognitive style, that is, their way of processing information and approach to problem
solving, as distinct from cognitive level, ability, or complexity”.
Above notions of innovativeness contribute to a high degree of generalization, abstract
personality trait of innovativeness. This notion has roots in past research, as; Hurt,
Joseph, and Cook (1977) considers innovativeness trait as a common or contemporary
personality trait which regenerating enthusiasm for change. Goldsmith (1984); Leavitt
and Walton (1975) argue that innate consumer innovativeness the tendency toward
gathering and processing of information which shows the interest of an individual to
try new experiences. Midgley and Dowling (1978) argue that “the concept of
innovativeness involves communication independence, determined by the degree to
which a consumer's decision process is independent of others' personal influence in the
social system”. Whereas Hirschman (1980) and Manning et al., (1995) relate
innovativeness with novelty seeking trait that is termed as an internally held desire to
try to find novelty and inventiveness. Steenkamp, Hofstede, and Wedel (1999) view
conceptualized consumer innovativeness as "the predisposition to buy new and
different products and brands rather than remain with previous choices and
42
consumption patterns”. Personal characteristics (i.e., socio-demographics and
psychographics) are very important factors in profiling consumer innovators.
Various researchers (e.g., Dickerson and Gentry 1983; Gatignon and Robertson 1991;
Rogers 1995; Steenkamp et al. 1999) support the concept that innovator individuals
may be portrayed in terms of age, income, education, extroversion, and venturesome
propensity. Because of the simplicity of data collection demographic information has
been extensively used to recognize innovators (e.g., Dickerson and Gentry 1983;
Labay and Kinnear 1981; Martinex, Polo, and Favian 1998; Midgley and Dowling
1993; Ostlund 1974; Summers 1971).
2.5.5. Measures of Consumer innovativeness
Innate consumer innovativeness is defined by Im, Bayus, and Mason (2003) as “an
individual's inherent innovative personality, predisposition, and cognitive style toward
innovations that can be applied to consumption domains across product classes”.
Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991); Goldsmith et al.( 1995) find KAI scale (Kirton
Adaption-Innovation Inventory) measures simplified innovative inclinations of a
person that are similar to global innovativeness “However other scales have been
proposed (e.g., Goldsmith and Hofacker 1991; Hurt et al. 1977; Jackson 1976; Leavitt
and Walton 1975), this inventory of items has been widely tested for reliability,
content validity, generalizability, and factor structure in numerous contexts, including
both general consumption situations and organizational decision-making situations”
(Bagozzi and Foxall, 1996; Foxall and Hackett, 1992; Goldsmith, 1984, 1986; Keller
and Holland, 1978). Goldsmith (1984, 1986) found that “the KAI is highly correlated
with other innovativeness scales (e.g., the Open Processing Scale by Leavitt and
Walton 1975 and the Jackson Personality Inventory by Jackson 1976), hence
exhibiting convergent validity with scales of the generalized innovative personality
trait”.
2.6. Dogmatism
Dogmatism has been defined by Schiffman (2007) as; “a personality trait that
measures the degree of rigidity (versus openness) that individuals display toward the
unfamiliar and toward information that is contrary to their own established beliefs”.
43
Marketers of technologically rich products are more interested in learning the level of
dogmatism (a personality-linked behavior).
Kuehnen, Hannover, and Schubert (2001); Markus and Kitayama (1991) view
dogmatism as “a self-determining concept which includes mental expressions of one’s
own traits, attitudes, and preferences and is connected with the motivation to bear up
undue social pressure and to be independent. On the other hand, an interdependent
self-concept includes mental representations of social norms, group memberships, and
others opinions”.
2.6.1. Consumer Dogmatism
Dogmatism trait of a consumer personality seems to be very influential in consumer’s
evaluation and baying decision of a product specifically a new offering. Hence for
successful marketers it is of very important dimension to understanding consumers
genuine buying habits and preferences.
“Dogmatism is the degree to which a person can react to relevant information on its
self developed advantages, not weigh downed by irrelevant factors in the situation.
The highly dogmatic person is not only more discomforted by a stimulus’ ambiguity
or uncertainty but also accepts more easily the advice of impressive communicators”.
(Brian, Robert, and Richard, 1970) furthermore they concluded in their study and
suggested that the correlation between the personality of a consumer and new product
adoption depends on the type of a product, for example, either the product is a
traditional or modern.
It has been observed through psycho-analytic studies that high dogmatic persons
presume their beliefs are correct. In this context Rokeach (1954, 1960) pointed out that
very interestingly even some flexible minded individuals identify their ideas,
thoughts, and anticipations may be misguided, but they adopt these concepts
provisionally, and tryung to improve and modify these assumptions time to time as
they get more knowledge or information. While some individuals (rigid minded) think
their viewpoints are totally accurate and their postulations and anticipations are
moderately impermeable to influence, they often seem rigid, defensive, biased, and
contemptuous. (the personification of dogmatism).
44
2.6.2. Properties of dogmatism
Johnson (2009) recapitulated Thirteen features are common in person which reveals
dogmatism. These features may include characteristics like; “cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral”.
1. Cognitive characteristics: Johnson (2009).argue that the situations where persons
reveal dogmatism repeatedly may display 5 characteristics like;
a) intolerance of ambiguity
b) defensive cognitive closure
c) rigid certainty
d) compartmentalization
e) limited personal insight
First, Hunt and Miller, (1968); Kleck and Wheaton, (1967), Leone, (1989) assumed
that individuals are running away from ambiguity and uncertainty, and looking for
more certainty and simplicity”. These types of individuals look for the persons who
convey strong, no hesitating ideas. Such persons may choose to have those type of
gatherings in which everybody can share the similar concepts and ideas. Particularly,
as compare to others, dogmatic persons try to diminish discrepancies. Such persons
may not reveal conflicting, mismatched, or contradictory viewpoints and opinions. In
reaction to such disagreements, these persons pay no attention to or play down
particular beliefs or assumptions. Second, they further assumed that “to avoid
ambiguity, these people prefer to believe that only one (this) ideology or belief is
correct”. Furthersuch inviduals does not accept any possibility that their faith and
beliefs are wrong, for instance; from religious point of view, these people may believe
the bible, the Quraa’n or any other holy book of other religion is absolute and cannot
be questioned, from political perspective they may hold up a democratic values, and
extremely dislike conservative approach, or vice versa. Third, such person’s
viewpoints are too inflexible and strictly disagree with any opinion or information that
does not match their opinions and beliefs. Such individuals are confident that they are
45
absolutely correct, and resultantly do not consider any more idea, and such persons
posses a high regard for leaders who retain such faith and concepts.
These predispositions were confirmed by Davies (1993, 1998). Leone (1989), they
illustrated, when rendering to idea that contradicts their held assumptions, these strict
minded persons are particularly liable to simply overlook these beliefs, and as an
alternative, they recognize the opinion as immaterial or unimportant. Fourth, these
persons demonstrate a characteristic referred as ‘compartmentalization’, where they
these persons become able to separate contradictory beliefs from others one, and as a
result, they stay unaware to the disagreements in their ideas and values. Such persons
may hold freedom of expression, but at the same time as deem that other persons
having no right to say something. Finally, these people’s insight into themselves is
narrow; they appear unaware to their lacking and mistakes, and they avoid talking
about their issues, mistakes, or apologies and they positively avoid psychotherapy and
having feeing that they are not being respected as they deserve.
2. Emotional characteristics: Johnson (2009) demonstrated Dogmatism by three
exciting (emotional) characteristics; relationship between beliefs and nervousness or
terror, relationship between idea and annoyance, and existential depression.
First, debates or manifestations about their concepts may bring out depression or
frustration. If the beliefs of such persons are opposed or queried, these persons agitate
and feel uneasy. Ultimately, they mostly avoid circumstances where their thoughts
might be questioned. Thus, dogmatism looks to characterize an effort to cultivate
confidence and to restrain depression. Second, these persons may also practice
undeserved irritation immediately as their viewpoint are opposed or unsubstantiated.
Such persons may appear as self-protective, violent, antagonistic, and unfriendly,
perhaps a reaction that hide their apprehension or panic. Third, these persons
sometime think their life is meaningless, and experience anger or depression. These
kinds of persons think their dealings cannot change or correct the society; they believe
the human race is messy, stupid, and heartless.
46
3. Behavioral characteristics: Johnson (2009) identified 5 types of behavioral features
or characteristics corresponding to dogmatism, e.g.; a fascination with supremacy and
position, prejudices towards their own circle, dictatorial violent behavior, dictatorial
obedience, and arrogance.
First, some persons often perform behaviors which are mean to enhance their power
and status, perhaps to a compulsive degree. They try to find urgently to mount up
material goods and privileged circumstances. Such types of persons are very sensitive
to hierarchy, believing that privileged and upper class people should be treated with
deference, they also been seen as very money-oriented. Second, these persons
recognize their own circles or community as better to other circles or communities.
Such persons mostly assume parts of opponent groups or beliefs and religions as
morally wrong or useless. Such people hold their his/her community as decent,
conscientious, or smart, these individuals may assume that only their belief, religion,
sect, and philosophy is right and accurate. They dismiss other religions or social
groups. Third, these people demonstrate dictatorial hostility. They strongly believe
that the persons or groups violating the rules and regulations must be punished
accordingly. Fourth, these people reveal authoritarian obedience. They believe in a
notion that chiefs should always be go behind more willingly not opposed,
furthermore leaders must to have exclusive privileges and special rights. Rokeach
(1954, 1960) postulated that “dogmatism was similar to right wing authoritarianism,
but contrasting to right wing authoritarianism, dogmatism does not assume any
specific substance”. That is endorsed by Goldstein and Blackman (1978) in way that
dogmatic person does not like conventional principles. Finally, the style of
communication of these people is proud and defensive, and their remarks are often
unconcerned, condescending, and disapproving.
2.6.3. Determinants of dogmatism
“Generally dogmatism is most widely assumed to represent an attempt to prevent
anxiety and other negative emotions. In contrast, dogmatism does not seem to be
47
associated with demographic characteristics like gender, age, religion, education, or
ethnicity” (Brown, 2007).
Dogmatism is contrarily associated to the notion of ‘openness to experience’ (Tittler,
1974), with reference to the five factor model of personality it is a key dimension.
Davies (2005) argues that dogmatism may be viewed as a part of this factor. “Thus,
previous circumstances to ingenuousness to experience may also restrain dogmatism.
In the same way anxiety may induce number of characteristics and features of
dogmatism” (Fruchter, Rokeach, and Novak, 1958).
While investigating about working memory Brown (2007) find that dogmatism is
inversely associated with measures of oral remembrance. Particularly levels of
dogmatism tend to increase when the persons cannot remember a sequence of words or
phrases immediately.
Brown (2007) elaborated this result adapted in the direction of the model which
Rokeach (1960) recommended to illustrate dogmatism. Where, Rokeach (1960)
suggested that “individuals develop a belief system, representing all the assumptions
and theories they regard as true. In addition, they form a disbelief system, representing
all the assumptions and theories they regard as false”. It has been observed that in
dogmatic people, belief and disbelief systems are segregated from one to another.
Thus, people do not find out correlations between beliefs and disbeliefs.
Contradictions are disrespected because different persons may not be capable to
compare various beliefs with other ones; these persons may not be capable to evaluate
modern substantiation with existing theories successfully, and also could not consider
quite a lot of distinct beliefs and insights at once. This is shown in the research of
Brown (2007), which has concluded that “the capacity of a person to compare distinct
beliefs goes to be declined when the working memory of individuals is limited and
individuals cannot readily retain and transform many ideas or concepts at the same
time”.
48
2.6.4. Measures of dogmatism
To measure of dogmatism, Rokeach developed a scale known as “Rokeach
Dogmatism Scale” mostly known as the “D scale”. The scale comprises of forty items,
which examines the degree of rigidity rather than flexibility in their concepts, ideas,
and values. So far, D scale is not mostly deemed adequately reliable or applicable.
As Altemeyer (1996) delineated, the questions did not show a relationship adequately
with each other; furthermore no reverse questions has been included. Altemeyer
(1996) formed a different concept of dogmatism, called the ‘Authoritarian Specter’.
This measure was defined as “undiscovered confidence and permanent beliefs” and
evaluated with the DOG scale. It was found that internal consistency reached at about
90% and also it was highly correlated with right wing totalitarianism, religious
prejudice, and enthusiastic thinking.
Gourville (2006) concluded that consumer resistance can be managed by two
important measures like;
1. Accepting resistance (Be patient, strive for significant improvement, and
Eliminate the old).
2. Minimizing resistance (Make behaviorally compatible products, seek out the un-
awarded, and find believers).
2.7. Social character
The Social Character trait of personality is measured by two dimensions as; ‘inner-
directedness’ and ‘other-directedness’, since Inner directedness enlightens the concept
where consumer is mostly leaded by their inner principles, feelings, and thoughts
which does not consider the point of view of others while evaluating new products for
possible purchase; on the other hand other directedness be predisposed importance to
the recommendations and advises of others during evaluation and consideration of
new product purchase. Hence it can be presumed that the consumers with inner-
directed behavior are relatively hard to get convinced and motivated, therefore it is
49
very difficult for marketers to get them ready to accept their offerings as contrast to
other directed buyers, because other directed consumers constantly prefer products that
are socially suitable and recognized by others.
An inner directed person follows conventional behavior on values learned from
parents while other-directed person bases such behavior on values from peers. These
personality traits play the game in different ways; conceivably they move away in
different ways as well. Inner directed individuals are directed by internalized, fixed
goals learned from elder family members in early life. They want to be liked by some
people; they are relatively less sensitive to the expectations and opinions of others, and
having less ‘home sickness’.
Riesman, Glazer and Denney (2001) are of the opinion about the lives of other
directed people are directed by the need to be liked by others, and their need for
approval is the primary goal in life; so they follow observable indications from those
around them, for example, peers, for the appropriate norms to follow. And they are
capable of less closeness with everyone so they are at home ‘everywhere and
nowhere’.
Innovators are assumed to be more inner directed (Mcdonald and Jacobs, 1992) and
driven by sensation-seeking and uniqueness-seeking motives (Burns and Krampf,
1992).
Riesman, et al. investigated and finds three categories of culture e.g.,
a) tradition-directed
b) inner-directed
c) other-directed
They portray the evolution of society from a tradition-directed culture, where
individuals follow their peers and are directed by former generations. Tradition-
directed societies follow values, norms, beliefs, and rules introduced a long time in the
past, and rarely succeeded in modern and dynamic environment. Tradition-
directedness was succeeded by people who were inner-directed. Where inner-directed
persons find the potential within themselves to pass their lives on what they found
using their own inner sight, not according to established norms. Inner-directed people
50
tend to be confident, sometimes rigid, even at their adulthood they act what they
learned in childhood.
Societal evolution made tradition-directed and the inner-directed social framework
secondary and meaningless, now the society (particularly middle class) progressively
accepted flexibility in the manner people lived with each other. Gradually ‘other-
directedness’ took grasp, as social forces that “how others were living, what and how
they consumed, what they did with their time, what their views were toward politics,
work, play, and so on”. Riesman and his researchers found that “other-directed people
were flexible and willing to accommodate others to get approval”.
2.7.1. Riesman's descriptions of inner and other directed traits
Inner-Directedness:
Directed by internalized, fixed goals learned from elders early in life.
Choices are guided by rigid, individualized character.
Wish to be liked by some people sometimes.
Emotional sanction is guilt.
Relatively insensitive to others, so at home anywhere.
Work and play are distinctly defined and do not mesh.
Money and skills are most important.
Other-Directedness:
Directed by a need to be liked by others.
Choices are broader and guided by the ability to pay attention to others'
signals.
Approval is a primary goal in life.
Emotional sanction is anxiety.
Capable of brief intimacy with everyone, so at home "everywhere and
nowhere".
Work and play are similar.
51
Businesses are more interested in the product of personality rather than
skills.
Kathleen Hamilton (2008) used IO (Inner and Other directed) scale for some
presumptions like;
Inner directed individuals funnel choices through rigid values and other
directed individuals' take cues from important others around them in
making choices,
Everyone wants to be liked by at least some people sometimes; other directed
individuals make approval a major concern in life.
Inner directed individuals are relatively insensitive to the opinions of others,
while other directed individuals are very sensitive to others' opinions.
Work and play are distinct from one another for the inner directed person,
but not for the other directed person.
The inner directed person is more interested in money and skills while the
other directed person is more interested in people.
Riesman investigated that, "The other-directed person wants to be loved rather than
esteemed, not necessarily to control others but to relate to them. Those who are other-
directed need assurance that they are emotionally in tune with others”.
Today the other-directed type of social personality is considered as complete that was
conceptualized in 1940s. It shows that the society’s (specifically middle class) need
for possessions has traveled from old to a modern society. While, the other-directed
persons could only recognize themselves through orientations to others in their
communities they intrinsically were confined in their ability to know themselves.
Riesman in his book ‘The Lonely Crowd’ argues that “although other-directed
individuals are critical for the smooth functioning of the modern organization, the
degree of independence is compromised and sacrificed”. Furthermore Riesman
comments that “society dominated by the other-directed may contain profound
deficiencies in leadership, individual self-knowledge, and human potential”.
52
Inner and Other directedness is different from extraversion and introversion. Jung
(1971) suggests that ‘introverts’ pay attention and are interested in the internal sphere
of partisanship, while extraverts are more indulged in outer sphere of freedom. An
interesting controversies are observed in the concepts of two renowned researchers
(Jung, and Riesman), where Jung's two concepts describe what people are interested in
(an introvert is more interested in personal reflection while an extravert prefers talking
to others), while Riesman's directedness describes who people are interested in. he
argue “An inner directed person does not necessarily prefer reflection to involvement
with the environment, but goals and values come from within and choices are guided
through a rigid set of values”. The rigid values could be represented through either
action or reaction. Inner directed person may express inherited values through internal
belief or by way of talking.
2.7.2. Measures of Social Character
The Inner and Other directedness Scale used to confine the Inner and other
directedness of individuals in the sample/respondents is unique scale in the available
literature on inner and other directedness.
So many researchers have tested the IO Scale's validity by its ability to predict the
same results about a person that Riesman did. Riesman, Glazer and Denney (2001)
assumed that “certain fields have more of an inner or other directed appeal, for
example, inner directed people value a product in business while other directed people
value a personality”. Supporting to this notion, Kassarjian (1962) found in a sample of
undergraduates that “students in natural sciences and the humanities are more inner
directed; and students in education, business and medicine are more other directed”.
2.8. Need for Uniqueness
Past research depicts that concept of consumers’ need for uniqueness originated from
Snyder and Fromkin’s (1977) research on ‘uniqueness theory’. Uniqueness theory
operates on the hypothesis that “consumers find a high level of similarity to others highly
53
undesirable and seek to differentiate themselves adopting various behaviors in order to
seek differentiation”.
Tian and McKenzie (2001); Snyder (1992) investigated that “material expressions of
uniqueness are highly valued as the social risks associated with this type of display and
consumption is seen to be relatively low”.
“The consumers are looking for the level of uniqueness that is confined only by the need
for social affiliation and social approval, leaving consumers to seek opportunities to
explore and demonstrate their uniqueness in ways that do not hamper or result in social
isolation and disapproval” (Snyder and Fromkin 1977).
Tian, Bearden and Hunter (2001) quoted that prior research has found that consumers’
need for uniqueness is more specific than simply the need for individualization, and it is
different from independence. Consumers’ need for uniqueness reflects both the ‘self-
image’ and ‘social image’ enhancement process and it depends upon the product as a
symbol of recognition in society (Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001; Snyder and Fromkin
1977).
Furthermore, Tian, Bearden and Hunter (2001) in the validation of consumers’ need for
uniqueness scales, it is found that education and gender has no any significant impact on
consumers’ need for uniqueness.
Fromkin (1970) identified that individuals have a ‘need for different individuality’ or a
‘need for uniqueness’. Furthermore; Fromkin and Lipshitz, (1976) identified that
“People with high uniqueness motivation have been characterized as willing to
manifest their uniqueness behaviorally despite the risk of social disapproval for such
displays”.
Tepper and Hoyle (1996) in their research on fashion and clothing concluded that
“Consumer manifestations of wearing clothing, which may help individuals, establish
a unique personal identity as well as a unique social image”.
2.8.1. Uniqueness Theory
(Synder and Fromkin, 1980) argue that ordinary individuals trying to keep and
maintain a reasonable level of resemblance corresponding to other people, this extent
of similarity may be observed in a situation where consumer accept it and is
emotionally satisfied.
54
Synder and Fromkin (1980) further discussed that “predictable emotional and
behavioral reactions to varying degrees of similarity take the form of a curvilinear
relationship”. For example, “a moderate amount of similarity to another person results
in a positive emotional reaction and no change in behavior”. Moreover, “when
similarity either exceeds a moderate level or drops below moderate, emotional
reactions become less positive, behavioral change toward dissimilarity occurs when
similarity exceeds a moderate level, and behavioral change toward similarity
(conformity behavior) increases as the level of similarity to another person drops
below moderate”.
According to Synder and Fromkin (1980), need for uniqueness among individuals
differs; accordingly, practical and psychological reactions depend on the level of need
for uniqueness. Such as, “persons with a high need for uniqueness tend to experience
positive emotions in the low similarity condition, negative emotions in a high
similarity condition, and engage mostly in changes toward dissimilarity relative to
others”. On the contrary, “persons with a low need for uniqueness may experience
positive emotions in a high similarity condition, negative emotions in a low similarity
condition, and may engage mainly in changes toward similarity relative to others”.
Synder and Fromkin (1980) further investigated that no sufficient data is available that
could be used for testing the imaginary rounded relationships resultant from the
theory.
Uniqueness-seeking behavior is observed in selection of clothing (Fromkin and
Lipshitz, 1976; Syndr, 1992; Synder and Fromkin, 1980).
Synder and Fromkin (1980) also investigated the importance of clothing which
exhibits uniqueness, they argue; “a percept or cognition by which the individual
designates himself and discriminates persons either himself or other persons, and as a
commodity, that is, an article of merchandise”.
Scale on need for uniqueness has been developed by Fromkin and Lipshitz (1976)
which attempted to determine a person’s need for uniqueness, in terms of dispositional
motivation among different individuals.
Tepper and Hoyle (1996) analyzed and concluded find that “lack of concern regarding
other’s reactions reflected a inclination toward self-expression with a no or less
55
concern for the evaluative consequences of assessing uniqueness, whereas a desire not
to always follow the rules reflected a less aggressive inclination to expose uniqueness
but a willingness to claim personal beliefs even when they are counter normative or
unpopular”.
Since behavioral expression of consumer’s need for uniqueness can be noticed when
the consumer goes to adopt new products earlier than others; hence, pioneering
consumer behavior is a way by which different persons may show their uniqueness
from others. Following this assumption, Lynn and Harris (1997a) investigated that
“there is a relationship between need for uniqueness and consumer dispositions,
because conformity improves the similarity between the people, a strong need for
uniqueness may reduce conformity, particularly the conformity resulting from
normative influence”.
Lynn and Harris (1997a) also find that consumer’s need for uniqueness has been
positively and significantly associated with consumer innovativeness, where as it was
negatively associated with susceptibility to normative influence, further they
concluded that “uniqueness striving is domain specific and that some people pursue
uniqueness through consumption more than do others”.
In another study Burns (1989) observed that as a consumer passing through the
adoption process has strong relationship with need for uniqueness. , moreover he
believed that choice of a product is real source through which consumers can
communicate their uniqueness. Burns (1989) investigated and find various categories
of products and observed the association between consumers’ need for uniqueness.
Burns (1989) found that “there is a significant difference between high and low need
for uniqueness among different respondents at the interest stage of new adoption
process”. Furthermore “both ‘interest and consideration stages’ were significantly
different in case of individuals who scored only at the extremes of high and low need
for uniqueness”. Consequently it was found “that an individual’s need for uniqueness
does affect the adoption process, but only at its early stages, and it does not affect the
number of new products of which an individual is aware, but it affects the number of
new products in which an individual expresses interest”. The behavior of innovators,
opinion leaders, and innovative informers for fashion is challenging and hard to adopt
56
at the initial stages of the new fashion (product) adoption process and diffusion of new
style. McAlister and Pessemier (1982) investigated that new product adoption is
directly and fundamentally related to need for uniqueness.
Workman and Kidd (2000) concluded in their research that; “fashion opinion leaders,
fashion innovators, and innovative communicators are demographically and
psychologically same, and they share attitudes and behaviors such as interest in
fashion and shopping, innovative behavior, favorable attitudes toward new products,
reading magazines, and especially reading fashion magazines. Furthermore; Fashion
opinion leaders and fashion innovators may also differ in some of their attitudes and
behaviors.”
Workman and Kidd (2000) also found that “Fashion opinion leaders (compared to
fashion innovators) are involved in communication about clothing, whether receiving
it through intensive exposure to a variety of media sources or sharing knowledge about
clothing accumulated from media sources or interpersonal contact”. Moreover “Due to
their self-confidence, self-acceptance, inner-directedness, tolerance for ambiguity, and
willingness to take risks, fashion innovators (compared to fashion opinion leaders)
show simplicity in decisions about clothing and feel secure in using clothing to
express their individuality”. Workman and Kidd (2000) also state that “for fashion
innovators; involvement with clothing provides a means of satisfying a need for
cognitive complexity and a need for variety in the form of mental stimulation”.
Tian et al. (2001) is of the view that one’s need for uniqueness is a motivational factor,
and is theorized as a motivational drive that compels individuals to be different from
others. Motivation is the energizing force within individuals that impels them to take
action (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2006). The desire for social distinction usually arises
when an individual feels a threat to their identity, that occurs when they perceive to be
similar to others, and thus they seek a sense of uniqueness (Tian et al., 2001). Tian et
al. (2001) assumed that the purchase of vintage goods or personalized items that are
not typically available, is often a way for consumers to display their resistance to
conformity. Thus, consumers possessing a high requirement for uniqueness will seek
to avoid popular product preferences, and therefore will familiarize themselves with
unique offerings (Tian et al., 2001). Whenever McAlister & Pessemier (1982)
57
concludes that “the desire for social distinction influences new product adoption and
variety-seeking behavior, and this is reflected in one’s choice of products”.
Ruvio, Shoham, and Brencic (2008); Knight and Kim (2007); Tian, Bearden,
and Hunter (2001) investigated that “there are three aspects to which consumers need
for uniqueness is visible: creative choice counter-conformity, unpopular choice
counter-conformity and avoidance of similarity”.
(1) Creative choice counter-conformity referred as the seeking out for group
delineation through the possession and usage of products that are adopted and
commonly used by others (Knight and Kim 2007; Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001).
Creative choice counter-conformity also reflects that “the consumer seeks social
differentness from majority of persons in a given society, but that consumer wants to
be approved by others, whenever creative consumer choices involve some risk” (Kron,
1983), “these acts also potentially bring out positive social evaluations of the
consumer as being one who is unique” (Snyder and Fromkin, 1977).
(2) Unpopular choice counter-conformity is referred as; “where consumers willingly
risk social disapproval to establish their uniqueness. They consume products
considered outside group norms” (Knight and Kim, 2007). Furthermore; unpopular
choice counter-conformity refers to the selection or use of products and brands that
diverge from group norms and is ready to take risk of social disapproval that
consumers endure in order to establish their differentness from others.
(3) Avoidance of similarity is considered as the consumers’ evasion of average
products and the propensity to prefer unpopular products (Knight and Kim, 2007).
Individuals showing dissimilarity to other individuals having no interest in buying,
keeping and using such products those are common just for sake of expression that
they are different and unique. The persons who possess a ‘high need for consumer
uniqueness’ use to know others' ownership of goods in product categories where
replacement is desired, in other words avoiding similarity mean to undervalue and
avoiding the purchase of products or brands that are supposed to be common and
usual.
58
Nail (1986) suggested that “changing from an initially preferred choice to a new one in
order to avoid similarity is a criterion for distinguishing counter conformity from other
motivations that incidentally result in being different”.
2.8.2. Measures of Need for Uniqueness
To measure consumers’ need for uniqueness Tian, Bearden, and Hunter (2001) in their
research accounted on the “development and validation of an instrument”.
Furthermore Tian, Bearden, and Hunter (2001) argue as “ the instrument is reflecting a
latent construct at a high level of abstraction, the new measure that captures trait
counterconformity with respect to consumer behaviors is reflected by three
intercorrelated dimensions: creative choice counterconformity, unpopular choice
counterconformity, and avoidance of similarity”. “The CNFU is a product-oriented
scale that is devised to correspond with conceptual marketing models of consumers’
responses to exterior product designs” (Bloch 1995, ‘product fashion cycles’ (Miller et
al. 1993), and ‘variety-seeking behavior’ (McAlister and Pesmier, 1982). “As such, the
scale emphasizes visual rather than verbal communications of differentness. Since I
have picked selective items from one dimension i.e.; creative choice
counterconformity because in our case this dimension fits well” (Tian, Bearden, and
Hunter, 2001).
59
CHAPTER -3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
3.1 Overview of Product adoption
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971); Im, Bayus, and Mason (2003) define new-product
adoption behavior as the extent to which a consumer is adopting an innovative product
before than others in his society or groups. In various research studies different
measures of new product adoption behavior are adopted, among from them "cross-
sectional method is used that is based on the number of products owned in a specific
category at the time of the survey” (Foxall 1988, 1995; Midgley and Dowling 1978;
Robertson and Myers 1969; Rogers 1995). Midgley and Dowling (1978) suggested
“cross-sectional method” they concluded that “it’s a practical measure of new-product
adoption behavior, since it produces fewer problems of respondent recall, reliability,
validity, and generalizability than a more direct measure of adoption timing”. Midgley
and Dowling (1978); Robertson (1971) supported the same notion which indicates that
“consumers whose average time to adoption is shorter tend to own more innovative
products”.
3.2 Conceptual model
Most of the researchers specifically define a trait like; “any distinguishable, relatively
enduring way in which one individual differs from another”. In trait theory personality
typically is illustrated that is dominated by one or other characteristics like;
“compulsiveness, ambitiousness, gregariousness, dogmatism, authoritarianism,
ethnocentrism, introversion, extroversion, aggressiveness and competitiveness”. “Trait
researchers have found that it is generally more realistic to expect personality to be
linked to how customers make their choices and to the purchase or consumption of a
broad product category rather than a specific brand”. (Schiffman and kanuk, 2008).
60
Fig; 3.1
3.2.1 Innovativeness and hypothesis
Im, Bayus, and Mason (2003) in their experiments find the ‘contingency framework’
recommended by Midgley and Dowling (1978) observed that there is an association
among innate consumer innovativeness, demographic characteristics, and the behavior
of consumer toward an innovative products, as well as the improving effect of
demographic characteristics on the relation between innate consumer innovativeness
and behavior toward new product adoption.
Innovative consumers are generally assumed as the consumers those are very open to
new concepts and thoughts and mostly initiator in making decision to purchase a new
product. Innovativeness is the core trait that portrays a consumer’s willingness to try
new products.
When companies are introducing a new brand or brand extensions they cannot deny
the importance of this trait in understanding the consumer personality and their buying
61
preferences because it is a key factor in the consumer’s likelihood to try the new
product.
Rocherich (2004) investigated that people which are generally “innovative” can be
verified by the domain of product. Chao, C.W., Reid, M., and Mavondo, F.T. (2012)
holding a positive and significant relationship between domain specific innovativeness
and really new product adoption, which shows that consumers who have a high level
of domain specific innovativeness and a stronger connection to certain product
categories tend to own more really new products and adopt earlier than other potential
consumers. Chao, C.W., Reid, M., and Mavondo, F.T. (2012) research verifying
previous studies of Citrin et al. (2000); Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) and
recommends that researchers need to be focused on product domains or categories
when asking consumers about their product purchasing and product adoption
behaviors rather than to be generalized.
Hence it is hypothesized that:
H1: Consumer Innovativeness will have a positive impact on NPA (New Product
Adoption)
3.2.2 Dogmatism and Hypothesis
It has been observed through psycho-analytic studies that high dogmatic persons pre-
assume their beliefs are correct. In this context Rokeach (1954, 1960) pointed out that
“even some people (flexible minded) recognize their beliefs, assumptions, and
expectations might be misguided, but they adopt these beliefs tentatively, and updating
these assumptions in response to additional information. Whenever some people (rigid
minded) assume their beliefs are absolutely correct and their assumptions and
expectations are relatively impermeable to persuasion or information, they often seem
rigid, defensive, biased, and contemptuous”.
Dogmatism is the extent to which a person can react to relevant information on its own
advantages, not weigh downed by irrelevant factors in the situation. The highly
dogmatic person is not only more discomforted by a stimulus’ ambiguity or
62
uncertainty but also accepts more easily the advice of impressive communicators
(Brian, Robert, and Richard, 1970).
Thus it is hypothesized that:
H2: Dogmatism will have a negative impact on NPA (New Product Adoption)
3.2.3 Social Character (Inner-directedness) and hypothesis
Inner and Other directedness is different from extraversion and introversion. Jung
(1971) suggests that “introverts” pay attention and are interested in "the inner world of
subjectivity” while extraverts are interested in and pay attention to the outer world of
objectivity”. An interesting controversies are observed in the concepts of two
renowned researchers (Jung, and Riesman), where Jung's two concepts describe what
people are interested in (an introvert is more interested in personal reflection while an
extravert prefers talking to others), while Riesman's directedness describes who people
are interested in. “An inner directed person does not necessarily prefer reflection to
involvement with the environment, but goals and values come from within and choices
are guided through a rigid set of values”. The rigid values could be represented
through either action or reaction. Inner directed person may express inherited values
through internal belief or by way of talking.
Riesman describes inner-directed traits that Directed by internalized, fixed goals
learned from elders early in life, choices are guided by rigid, individualized character,
wish to be liked by some people sometimes, emotional sanction is guilt, relatively
insensitive to others, so at home anywhere, work and play are distinctly defined and do
not mesh, and money and skills are most important.
Thus it is hypothesized that:
H3: Social Character (Inner-directedness) will have a negative impact on NPA (New
Product Adoption)
63
3.2.4 Social Character (Other-directedness) and hypothesis
Riesman in his book “The Lonely Crowd” described that although other-directed
individuals are critical for the smooth functioning of the modern organization, the
degree of independence is compromised and sacrificed. Furthermore Riesman
comments that “society dominated by the other-directed may contain profound
deficiencies in leadership, individual self-knowledge, and human potential”. He
further explained that other-directed persons are directed by a need to be liked by
others, their choices are broader and guided by the ability to pay attention to others'
signals, for them approval is a primary goal in life, and also their emotional sanction is
anxiety.
Kathleen Hamilton (2008) presumes that everyone wants to be liked by at least some
people sometimes; other directed individuals make approval a major concern in life,
work and play are distinct from one another for the inner directed person, but not for
the other directed person, capable of brief intimacy with everyone, so at home
‘everywhere and nowhere’, work and play are similar, and businesses are more
interested in the product of personality rather than skills.
Hence it is hypothesized that:
H4: Social Character (Other-directedness) will have a positive impact on NPA (New
Product Adoption)
3.2.5 Need for uniqueness and hypothesis
Tian et al. (2001) is of the view that one’s need for uniqueness is a motivational factor,
and is theorized as a motivational drive that compels individuals to be different from
others. Motivation is the energizing force within individuals that impels them to take
action (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2006). The desire for social distinction usually arises
when an individual feels a threat to their identity, that occurs when they perceive to be
similar to others, and thus they seek a sense of uniqueness (Tian et al., 2001). Tian et
al. (2001) assumed that the purchase of vintage goods or personalized items that are
64
not typically available, is often a way for consumers to display their resistance to
conformity. Thus, consumers possessing a high requirement for uniqueness will seek
to avoid popular product preferences, and therefore will familiarize themselves with
unique offerings (Tian et al., 2001). Whenever McAlister and Pessemier (1982)
concludes that the desire for social distinction influences new product adoption and
variety-seeking behavior, and this is reflected in one’s choice of products.
According to Synder and Fromkin (1980), need for uniqueness among individuals
differs; accordingly, practical and expressive reactions depend on person’s degree of
need for uniqueness. Such as, “persons with a high need for uniqueness tend to
experience positive emotions in the low similarity condition, negative emotions in a
high similarity condition, and engage mostly in changes toward dissimilarity relative
to others”. On the contrary, “persons with a low need for uniqueness may experience
positive emotions in a high similarity condition, negative emotions in a low similarity
condition, and may engage mainly in changes toward similarity relative to others”.
Synder and Fromkin (1980) further investigated; “there is a lack of data that can be
used to test the hypothetical curvilinear relationships resulting from the theory”.
Uniqueness-seeking behavior is observed in selection of clothing (Fromkin and
Lipshitz, 1976; Syndr, 1992; Synder and Fromkin, 1980).
Synder and Fromkin (1980) also investigated the job of clothing as a consumers’
uniqueness trait, quoted as, “a percept or cognition by which the individual designates
himself and discriminates persons either himself or other persons, and as a commodity,
that is, an article of merchandise”.
Thus it is hypothesized that:
H5: Need for uniquenes will have a positive impact on NPA (New Product Adoption)
65
CHAPTER - 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Methodology is a blueprint of a research project regarding how and in what way
evidence will be accumulated for a research investigation (Mackay et al., 2002). The
use and justification of a methodology is very important in order to make a better
assessment of evidence to create knowledge (Crotty, 1998). The nature of the research
investigation is important for deciding on the methodology and methods; for instance,
either the research investigation is exploratory or conclusive (Churchill and Iacobucci,
2009). In addition to understanding the nature of research, it is extremely important to
identify and operationalise the constructs involved in the research (Vaus, 2001).
According to Churchill and Iacobucci (2009) conceptualization of a construct in light
of academic literature can be used as exploratory in order to identify conclusive
methods regarding relationships among constructs.
Since we had pre-determined hypotheses and the scales used in the study were
established scales, therefore conclusive research methodology was used for this study.
4.1. Method of Data Collection
4.1.1. Measures
The New product adoption was measured by three items, Consumer Innovativeness by
six items, Dogmatism by four items, Social character was measured from two
dimensions, i.e.; ID and OD where both were measured by three items for each, finally
Need for Uniqueness was measured by thirteen items.
4.1.2. Sample Design
In order to measure the influence of consumer innovativeness, Dogmatism, Social
character and need for uniqueness on the new product adoption, the sample size was
430 that was selected through convenient sampling procedure, the size of sample
according to demography has been noted by the survey that the age of the sample
disbursed from 18 years to 55 years, where male frequency was 256 (59.5%) and
66
female frequency was 174 (40.5%), educational qualification was noted as; Primary or
Less 2.3% , Matriculation/Intermediate11.6%, Graduate 39.1%, Masters 39.8%,
M.S/PhD 6.5%, from occupational point of view the sample was seen as; Govt. service
32.1%, self employed 21.2%, student 34.0%, other12.6%, and average monthly family
income of household was Rupees 68000.
The sampling unit from where survey was conducted consists of some districts of
upper Sindh province (Pakistan), like; Khairpur, including some small towns and
villages of district Khaipur, as; Gambat, Khuhra, Kotdiji, Piryaloi, Peer jo goth,
Ranipur,Thehri, Hussainabad,and Ghari mori,then some areas of Sukkur district as;
panoaqil, rohri,and some areas of Jacobabad district like Thul, mirpur burirro, and
Jacobabad city area.
4.1.3. Questionnaire Design
An instrument (5- point Likert scale) was developed initially to test the content and
evaluation validity for this research. Questionnaire was developed in a way as each
hypothesis could be tested accordingly. Five-point Likert scale was used in structuring
a question where five choices were provided in each statement from the degree of
agreement to disagreement which became easy for respondent to answer.
4.2. Content Validity of Research Instrument
For content validity of instrument a Questionnaire pre-test was designed to assess the
influence of consumer innovativeness, dogmatism, social character (ID and OD) and
the need for uniqueness. The new product adoption scale (NPAS) was also included in
the questionnaire. The questionnaire was pretested and a pilot survey was conducted
from a sample of 65 students and academic staff at Shah Abdul Latif University. The
students were approached at the end of the class to fill in the questionnaire. The
questionnaire was re-collected as soon as they had finished it; on average, the
questionnaire was filled in fifteen minutes. The response rate was 90%. The
67
respondents were asked for any suggestion/correction or ambiguity (if any) in any
question. On the basis of assessment and suggestion from the pilot study the content of
the questionnaire has been modified and finalised for pre-test. The responses of these
respondents been excluded from actual data. A survey was conducted to evaluate the
influence of consumer innovativeness, Dogmatism, Social character and need for
uniqueness on the new product adoption. Completed questionnaires were collected
from the respondents and data was entered in computer software (SPSS) for
quantitative analysis.
4.3 Development of New Product Adoption (NPA) scale
Two steps were employed to generate an initial pool of items for measuring emotional
confidence. First, an academic theoretical underpinning of the construct (i.e. New
Product Adoption); and second, the use of existing scales related to the
conceptualization of new product adoption.
4.3.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales
I found some relevant academic literature and taken three items on new product
adoption construct from [i.e.; Hanzaee,Attar, and Alikhan (2011), Yun, Verma,
Pysarchik,Yu, and Chowdhury (2008), and Eng, Quaia,(2009).
Few items were generated based on academic literature and conceptual domain of new
product adoption as suggested in this thesis.
Keeping in view the existing description of NPA, a few items were generated in light
of the conceptualization of new product adoption for initial testing. Initially, six items
were generated for pilot testing. The items were;
It was also reported that a question should be specified to a context to make it more
68
meaningful. Thus due to non significance of and lower Cronbach’s alpha, the items
were further refined and reduced to three items those were used in finalized scale, the
updated items were;
4.4 Development of scales for constructs in the model
Scales for the constructs (i.e.; Consumer innovativeness, dogmatism, social character,
and need for uniqueness) in the model that described in the conceptualization chapter
are based on relevant academic literature.
4.4.1 Consumer Innovativeness
Two steps were employed to generate an initial pool of items for measuring emotional
confidence. First, an academic theoretical underpinning of the construct (i.e.;
consumer innovativeness); and second, the use of existing scales related to the
conceptualization of new product adoption.
4.4.1.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales
Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) (Kirton, 1976) scale measures a
respondent’s simplified innovative dispositions which are similar to global
innovativeness (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991; Goldsmith et al., 1995). “However
other scales have been proposed (e.g., Goldsmith and Hofacker 1991; Hurt et al. 1977;
Jackson 1976; Leavitt and Walton 1975), this inventory of items has been widely
tested for reliability, content validity, generalizability, and factor structure in numerous
contexts, including both general consumption situations and organizational decision-
making situations” (Bagozzi and Foxall, 1996; Foxall and Hackett, 1992; Goldsmith,
1984, 1986; Keller and Holland, 1978). Goldsmith (1984, 1986) found that “the KAI
69
is highly correlated with other innovativeness scales (e.g., the Open Processing Scale
by Leavitt and Walton 1975 and the Jackson Personality Inventory by Jackson 1976),
hence exhibiting convergent validity with scales of the generalized innovative
personality trait”.
Few items were generated based on academic literature and conceptual domain of new
product adoption as suggested in this thesis. Keeping in view the existing description
of Consumer innovativeness, a few items were generated in light of the
conceptualization of consumer innovativeness for initial testing. Initially, thirteen
items were generated for pilot testing. Initially self generated and adopted items were
designed to measure the construct, like;
It was also reported that a question should be specified to a context to make it more
meaningful. Thus due to non significance of and lower Cronbach’s alpha, the items
were further refined and reduced to six items those were used in finalized scale, the
updated items were;
70
4.4.2 Dogmatism
Two steps were employed to generate an initial pool of items for measuring emotional
confidence. First, an academic theoretical underpinning of the construct (i.e.;
dogmatism); and second, the use of existing scales related to the conceptualization of
new product adoption.
4.4.2.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales
I found some relevant academic literature to measure the dogmatism construct.
To measure of dogmatism, Rokeach developed a scale known as “Rokeach
Dogmatism Scale” mostly known as the “D scale”. The scale comprises of forty items,
which examines the degree of rigidity rather than flexibility in their concepts, ideas,
and values. So far, D scale is not mostly deemed adequately reliable or applicable.
As Altemeyer (1996) delineated, the questions did not show a relationship adequately
with each other; furthermore no reverse questions has been included. Altemeyer
(1996) formed a different concept of dogmatism, called the “Authoritarian Specter”.
This measure was defined as “undiscovered confidence and permanent beliefs” and
evaluated with the DOG scale. It was found that internal consistency reached at about
90% and also it was highly correlated with right wing totalitarianism, religious
prejudice, and enthusiastic thinking.
Few items were generated based on academic literature and conceptual domain of new
product adoption as suggested in this thesis. Keeping in view the existing description
of dogmatism, a few items were generated in light of the conceptualization of
dogmatism for initial testing. Initially, nineteen items were generated for pilot testing.
The items were;
71
It was also reported that a question should be specified to a context to make it more
meaningful. Thus due to non significance of and lower Cronbach’s alpa, the items
were further refined and reduced to four items those were used in finalized scale, the
updated items were;
4.4.3 Social character (Inner-directedness and other directedness)
Two steps were employed to generate an initial pool of items for measuring emotional
confidence. First, an academic theoretical underpinning of the construct (i.e.; social
character); and second, the use of existing scales related to the conceptualization of
new product adoption.
72
4.4.3.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales
I found some relevant academic literature where inner and other directedness Scale are
used to confine the inner and other directedness of individuals in the
sample/respondents is unique scale in the available literature on inner and other
directedness.
So many researchers have tested the IO Scale's validity by its ability to predict the
same results about a person that Riesman did. Riesman, Glazer and Denney (2001)
assumed that “certain fields have more of an inner or other directed appeal, for
example, inner directed people value a product in business while other directed people
value a personality”. Supporting to this notion, Kassarjian (1962) found in a sample of
undergraduates that “students in natural sciences and the humanities are more inner
directed; and students in education, business and medicine are more other directed”.
Few items for ID and OD were generated collectively based on academic literature and
conceptual domain of social character as suggested in this thesis.
Keeping in view the existing description of Social character, a few items were
generated in light of the conceptualization of social character for initial testing.
Initially, nine (combined) items were generated for pilot testing, the items were;
It was also reported that a question should be specified to a context to make it more
meaningful. Thus due to non significance of and lower Cronbach’s alpa, the items
were further refined and reduced to three for ID and three for OD separately, the items
for ID those were updated and used in finalized scale, were;
73
And the items for OD those were updated and used in finalized scale were;
4.4.4 Need for Uniqueness
Two steps were employed to generate an initial pool of items for measuring emotional
confidence. First, an academic theoretical underpinning of the construct (i.e.; need for
uniqueness); and second, the use of existing scales related to the conceptualization of
new product adoption.
4.4.4.1 Theoretical underpinning and Established scales
I found some relevant academic literature where Tian, Bearden, and Hunter (2001) in
their research reported on the development and validation of an instrument that
measures consumers’ need for uniqueness. Reflecting a latent construct at a high level
of abstraction, the new measure that captures trait counterconformity with respect to
consumer behaviors is reflected by three intercorrelated dimensions: creative choice
counterconformity, unpopular choice counterconformity, and avoidance of similarity.
The CNFU is a product-oriented scale that is devised to correspond with conceptual
marketing models of consumers’ responses to exterior product designs (Bloch, 1995),
product fashion cycles (Miller et al. 1993), and variety-seeking behavior (McAlister
and Pessemier, 1982). As such, the scale emphasizes visual rather than verbal
communications of differentness. Since I have picked selective items from one
dimension i.e.; creative choice counterconformity because in our case this dimension
fits well.
Few items were generated based on academic literature and conceptual domain of
CNFU as suggested in this thesis.
74
Keeping in view the existing description of CNFU, a few items were generated in light
of the conceptualization of CNFU for initial testing. Initially, fifteen items were
generated for creative choice/counterconformity for pilot testing, the items were;
Initially, eight items were generated for unpopular choice/counterconformity, the items
were;
Initially, seven items were generated for avoidance of similarity, the items were;
75
It was also reported that a question should be specified to a context to make it more
meaningful. Thus due to non significance of and lower Cronbach’s alpha, the items
were further refined and reduced to thirteen items (from creative choice/
countercoformity items), the items those were updated and used in finalized scale,
were;
76
4.5 Data Collection
Data for the main study (testing the conceptual framework) was collected from local
residents in different parts of upper Sind province using a proportionate stratified
random sampling. In a stratified sampling, the population is divided in subgroups and
samples are chosen from each group (Churchill et al., 2010). The selected areas of the
Sindh province were divided into two subgroups in terms of gender. The data
collection from the specified subgroups was one of the most difficult tasks of this
study. Initially, respondents were asked at their doorsteps whether they were willing to
fill in the questionnaire. This move was not helpful as most of the respondents were
unwilling to fill them in because of low literacy rate; then it was decided that they
would be assisted in filling the questionnaires. There was no sensitive information
required in the questionnaire such as contact number and address this method was
successful but time consuming; the whole process of the data collection took around
three months. But the upside was that by providing them assistance in understanding
the questions, the questionnaires were properly filled in.
77
CHAPTER -5
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
5.1 EFA and CFA of research constructs
In this research five constructs are used each construct is measured by multiple items.
The constructs include; new product adoption, consumer innovativeness, dogmatism,
social character, and need for uniqueness. Although all constructs used in the research
were established constructs, they were subject to exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis.
5.1.1. EFA and CFA for New Product Adoption
5.1.1.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
New product adoption construct was measured with three items and factor analysis
was conducted on these items. Part of the factor analysis KMO and Bartlett’s test was
also conducted; the result is highlighted in table No. 5.1.
Table No. 5.1
The results suggest that the data is adequate to conduct factor analysis. KMO measure
of sampling adequacy is reasonably good as it is just less than suggested threshold of
0.70 by 0.05. In order to make data more interpretable factor rotation was used,
generally promax rotation is used when there is assumption that items would be
78
correlated, since that was the case the promax rotation was used where only one
dimension was abstracted thus the data was not rotated .
Table No. 5.2
Table No. 5.2 shows only one component with eigenvalue greater than 1 the
eigenvalue of the first component was 2.06 with variance explained at 68.83%. It is
suggested if eigenvalue is greater than 1 then it explains sizable variance in a
component thus should be used as dimension of a construct.
Graph No.5.1
Graph No. 5.1 of Scree plot also show steep elbow curve of the first component.
79
Table No. 5.3
Table No. 5.3 shows loadings of each item in the construct.
5.1.1.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
All items loaded higher than the suggested threshold 0.7 except one item. Since new
product adoption was measured by only three items respectively so none of the items
were deleted to retain valuable information of the constructs especially when the
measurement model showed good model fit and all items were significant.
The CFA of the items was assessed using measurement model, all items loaded on the
construct were higher than suggested threshold 0.70 and all items were significant.
The model fit analysis of the measurement model also suggests that the data fit the
model very well. The goodness of fit indices were ᵡ2 = 55.2; P >0.5; CMIN/DF
=7.5; SRMR =0.5; GFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.11. All
indices show the model fit accept the chi square absolute index which was
>0.05. Generally it is highly unlikely to get insignificant chi square because it is
80
sensitive to a sample size that is why other goodness of fit indices are
introduced to check the model fit.
Fig.; No. 5.1
Fig.; No. 5.1 shows the measurement model of NPA (New Product Adoption)
along with standardized loadings.
5.1.1.3. Construct Reliability of New Product Adoption
Table No. 5.4
The construct reliability was assessed where the table No. 5.4 reliability statistics
suggest that Cronbach's alpha is 0.77 which is greater than suggested threshold 0.70,
thus the construct is reliable.
81
Table No. 5.5
Table No. 5.5 shows that there was no significant improvement in the Cronbach's
alpha in case of deletion of any item.
5.1.2. EFA and CFA for Consumer innovativeness
5.1.2.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Consumer innovativeness construct was measured with six items and factor analysis
was conducted on these items. Part of the factor analysis KMO and Bartlett’s test was
also conducted; the result is highlighted in table No. 5.6.
Table No. 5.6
The results suggest that the data is adequate to conduct factor analysis. KMO measure
of sampling adequacy is 0.89 which is greater than suggested threshold 0.70. In order
82
to make data more interpretable factor rotation was used, generally promax rotation is
used when there is assumption that items would be correlated, since that was the case
the promax rotation was used where only one dimension was abstracted thus the data
was not rotated .
Table No. 5.7
Table No. 5.7 shows only one component with eigenvalue greater than 1 the
eigenvalue of the first component was 4.22 with variance explained at 70.48%. It is
suggested if eigenvalue is greater than 1 then it explains sizable variance in a
component thus should be used as dimension of a construct.
Graph No. 5.2
83
Graph No. 5.2 of Scree plot also show steep elbow curve of the first component.
Table No. 5.8
Table No. 5.8 shows loadings of each item in the construct.
5.1.2.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
The CFA of the items was assessed using measurement model, all items loaded on the
construct were higher than suggested threshold 0.70 and all items were significant.
The model fit analysis of the measurement model also suggests that the data fit the
model very well. The goodness of fit indices were ᵡ2 = 61.78; P >0.05; CMIN/DF
=6.8; SRMR =0.02; GFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.94; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.11. All
indices show the model fit accept the chi square absolute index which was
>0.05. Generally it is highly unlikely to get insignificant chi square because it is
sensitive to a sample size that is why other goodness of fit indices are
84
introduced to check the model fit. Graph No. 5.4 shows the measurement model
of CI (Consumer Innovativeness) along with standardized loadings.
Fig.; No. 5.2
Fig; No. 5.2 shows the measurement model of CI (Consumer Innovativeness)
along with standardized loadings.
5.1.2.3. Construct Reliability of Consumer innovativeness
Table No. 5.9
The construct reliability was assessed where the table No. 5.9 reliability statistics
suggest that Cronbach's alpha is 0.91 which is greater than suggested threshold 0.70,
thus the construct is reliable.
85
Table No. 5.10
Table No. 5.10 shows that there was no significant improvement in the Cronbach's
alpha in case of deletion of any item.
5.1.3. EFA and CFA for Dogmatism
5.1.3.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Dogmatism construct was measured with four items and factor analysis was conducted
on these items. Part of the factor analysis KMO and Bartlett’s test was also conducted;
the result is highlighted in table No. 5.11.
Table No. 5.11
86
The results suggest that the data is adequate to conduct factor analysis. KMO measure
of sampling adequacy is 0.91 which is greater than suggested threshold 0.70. In order
to make data more interpretable factor rotation was used, generally promax rotation is
used when there is assumption that items would be correlated, since that was the case
the promax rotation was used where only one dimension was abstracted thus the data
was not rotated .
Table No. 5.12
Table No. 5.12 shows only one component with eigenvalue greater than 1 the
eigenvalue of the first component was 5.31 with variance explained at 59.09%. It is
suggested if eigenvalue is greater than 1 then it explains sizable variance in a
component thus should be used as dimension of a construct.
87
Graph No. 5.3
Graph No. 5.3 of Scree plot also show steep elbow curve of the first component.
Table No. 5.13
Table No. 5.13 shows loadings of each item in the construct.
88
5.1.3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
The CFA of the items was assessed using measurement model, all items loaded on the
construct were higher than suggested threshold 0.70 and all items were significant.
The model fit analysis of the measurement model also suggests that the data fit the
model very well. The goodness of fit indices were ᵡ2 = 12.67; P >0.05; CMIN/DF
=6.33; SRMR =0.02; GFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.94; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.11. All
indices show the model fit accept the chi square absolute index which was
>0.05. Generally it is highly unlikely to get insignificant chi square because it is
sensitive to a sample size that is why other goodness of fit indices are
introduced to check the model fit.
Fig; No. 5.3
Fig; No. 5.3 shows the measurement model of DOG (Dogmatism) along with
standardized loadings.
89
5.1.3.3. Construct Reliability of Dogmatism
Table No. 5.14
The construct reliability was assessed where the table No. 5.14 reliability statistics
suggest that Cronbach's alpha is 0.81 which is greater than suggested threshold 0.70,
thus the construct is reliable.
Table No. 5.15
Table No. 5.15 shows that there was no significant improvement in the Cronbach's
alpha in case of deletion of any item.
90
5.1.4. EFA and CFA for Social Character
5.1.4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Social Character construct consists of two dimensions inner directed and other
directed.
5.1.4.1.1. Inner directed
Inner directed was measured with three items and factor analysis was conducted on
these items. Part of the factor analysis KMO and Bartlett test was also conducted; the
result is highlighted in table No. 5.16.
Table No. 5.16
The results suggest that the data is adequate to conduct factor analysis. KMO measure
of sampling adequacy is 0.66 which is reasonably good as it is just less than
suggested threshold of 0.70 by 0.06. In order to make data more interpretable factor
rotation was used, generally promax rotation is used when there is assumption that
items would be correlated, since that was the case the promax rotation was used where
only one dimension was abstracted thus the data was not rotated .
Table No. 5.17
91
Table No. 5.17 shows only one component with eigenvalue greater than 1, the
eigenvalue of the first component was 1.88 with variance explained at 62.67%. It is
suggested if eigenvalue is greater than 1 then it explains sizable variance in a
component thus should be used as dimension of a construct.
Graph No. 5.4
Graph No. 5.4 of Scree plot also show steep elbow curve of the first component.
92
Table No. 5.18
Table No. 5.18 shows loadings of each item in the construct.
5.1.4.1.2. Other directed
Other directed was measured with three items and factor analysis was conducted on
these items. Part of the factor analysis KMO and Bartlett test was also conducted; the
result is highlighted in table No. 5.19.
Table No. 5.19
93
The results suggest that the data is adequate to conduct factor analysis. KMO measure
of sampling adequacy is 0.68 which is reasonably good as it is just less than
suggested threshold of 0.70 by 0.06. In order to make data more interpretable factor
rotation was used, generally promax rotation is used when there is assumption that
items would be correlated, since that was the case the promax rotation was used where
only one dimension was abstracted thus the data was not rotated .
Table No. 5.20
Table No. 5.20 shows only one component with eigenvalue greater than 1, the
eigenvalue of the first component was 2.01 with variance explained at 67.22%. It is
suggested if eigenvalue is greater than 1 then it explains sizable variance in a
component thus should be used as dimension of a construct.
Graph No. 5.5
94
Graph No. 5.5 of Scree plot also show steep elbow curve of the first component.
Table No. 5.21
Table No. 5.21 shows loadings of each item in the construct.
5.1.4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
The CFA of the items was assessed using measurement model, for social character.
Since SC consists of two dimensions ID and OD so both were used in a measurement
model and covariance between the two was added in the model.
All items showing moderate loadings few items were less than suggested threshold
0.70 since ID and OD were measured by only three items respectively so none of the
items were deleted to retain valuable information of the constructs especially when the
measurement model showed good model fit and all items were significant.
The goodness of fit indices were ᵡ2 = 51.51; P >0.5; CMIN/DF =6.4; SRMR =0.5;
GFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.86; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.11. All indices show the
95
model fit accept the chi square absolute index which was >0.05. Generally it is
highly unlikely to get insignificant chi square because it is sensitive to a sample
size that is why other goodness of fit indices are introduced to check the model
fit.
Fig; No. 5.4
Fig. No. 5.4 shows the measurement model of Social Character along with
standardized loadings.
5.1.4.3. Construct Reliability of Social Character
Table No. 5.22
96
The construct reliability of inner directed dimension was assessed where the table No.
5.22 reliability statistics suggest that Cronbach's alpha is 0.76 which is greater than
suggested threshold 0.70, thus the construct is reliable.
Table No. 5.23
Table No. 5.23 shows that there was no significant improvement in the Cronbach's
alpha in case of deletion of any item.
Table No. 5.24
The construct reliability of other directed dimension was assessed where the table No.
5.24 reliability statistics suggest that Cronbach's alpha is 0.74 which is greater than
suggested threshold 0.70, thus the construct is reliable.
97
Table No. 5.25
Table No. 5.25 shows that there was no significant improvement in the Cronbach's
alpha in case of deletion of any item.
5.1.5. EFA and CFA for Need for Uniqueness
5.1.5.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Need for uniqueness construct was measured with 13 items and factor analysis was
conducted on these items. Part of the factor analysis KMO and Bartlett’s test was also
conducted; the result is highlighted in table No. 5.26.
Table No. 5.26
The results suggest that the data is adequate to conduct factor analysis. KMO measure
of sampling adequacy is 0.95 which is greater than suggested threshold 0.70. In order
to make data more interpretable factor rotation was used, generally promax rotation is
used when there is assumption that items would be correlated, since that was the case
98
the promax rotation was used where only one dimension was abstracted thus the data
was not rotated .
Table No. 5.27
Table No. 5.27 shows only one component with eigenvalue greater than 1 the
eigenvalue of the first component was 7.59 with variance explained at 63.2%. It is
suggested if eigenvalue is greater than 1 then it explains sizable variance in a
component thus should be used as dimension of a construct.
Graph No. 5.6
99
Graph No. 5.6 of Scree plot also show steep elbow curve of the first component.
Table No. 5.28
Table No. 5.28 shows loadings of each item in the construct.
5.1.5.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
The CFA of the items was assessed using measurement model, all items loaded on the
construct were higher than suggested threshold 0.70 and all items were significant.
The model fit analysis of the measurement model also suggests that the data fit the
100
model very well. The goodness of fit indices were ᵡ2 = 264; P >0.05; CMIN/DF
=4.06; SRMR =0.03; GFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.94; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.08. All
indices show the model fit accept the chi square absolute index which was
>0.05. Generally it is highly unlikely to get insignificant chi square because it is
sensitive to a sample size that is why other goodness of fit indices are
introduced to check the model fit.
Fig; No. 5.5
Fig; No. 5.5 shows the measurement model of NFU along with standardized
loadings.
101
5.1.5.3. Construct Reliability of Need for Uniqueness
Table No. 5.29
The construct reliability was assessed where the table No. 5.29 reliability statistics
suggest that Cronbach's alpha is 0.95 which is greater than suggested threshold 0.70,
thus the construct is reliable.
Table No. 5.30
Item-Total Statistics
102
Table No. 5.30 shows that there was no significant improvement in the Cronbach's
alpha in case of deletion of any item.
5.2 Results
5.2.1 Results whole model
In this study four constructs were include in the product adoption model Consumer
innovativeness, Dogmatism, Social Character, and Need For Uniqueness and these
were used as exogenous variables and NPA was used and endogenous variable in the
structural model.
It was hypothesized that;
H1: Consumer Innovativeness will have a positive impact on NPA (New Product
adoption)
H2: Dogmatism will have a negative impact on NPA (New Product adoption)
H3: Social Character (Inner-directedness) will have a negative impact on NPA (New
Product adoption)
H4: Social Character (Other-directedness) will have a positive impact on NPA (New
Product adoption)
H5: “Need for uniqueness” will have a positive impact on NPA (New Product
adoption)
The evidence accumulated through structural model suggests that only two hypothesis
were confirmed as significant result that (NFU) Need For Uniqueness has positive
impact on NPA (New Product adoption) with Standardized regression coefficient 0.69
(p < .05) and (CI) Consumer innovativeness has a positive significant impact on NPA
(New Product adoption) with standardized regression coefficient 0.36 (p < .05). Other
hypotheses such as influence of Dogmatism, Social Character inner-directed and
Social Character other-directed were not confirmed, as regression coefficients and
significance level was 0.03 (p > .05), -0.02 (p > .05) and -0.09 (p > .05) respectively.
103
5.2.2 Hypotheses support summary
Table No. 5.31 Hypotheses Support Summary
104
The whole model is shown in Fig; No. 5.6.
Fig; 5.6
Since three hypotheses were not confirmed in the model the fit indices also showed
poor model fit with ᵡ2 = 3378 P>.05 with CMIN/DF = 7.3, since in alternate model,
dogmatism and social character (ID/OD) were deleted from the model. As a result the
model fit indices ᵡ2 (chi square) showed substantially better fit with Chi square ∆
(Delta) = 1983, p > 0.05. Despite substantial improvement in the model still other
indices were not showing good model fit, such as; SRMR = 0.32, GFI +0.81, TLI=
0.82, CFI/DF = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.11.
105
The alternate model is shown in fig; N0. 5.7.
Fig; No. 5.7 (Alternate model -1)
Based on the theoretical justification it is presumed that there should a covariance path
between NFU and CI. As a result the model fit indices increased substantially with chi
square ∆ (Delta) = 482 and CFI/DF= 4.43, other indices such as SRMR and CFI
reached to their suggested threshold of model fit SRMR =.04, CFI=.90.
The alternate model is shown in fig; N0. 5.8.
106
Fig; No. 5.8 (Alternate model - 2)
In order to enhance model fit additional covariance paths were included in the model
in light of modification indices generated by structural equation Model in software
AMOS.
As a result overall model fit suggests the data fits model very well with
ᵡ2 =843, and P >.05; CMI/DF=4.17; SRMR=0.04; TLI=0.90; CFI =0.91;
SRMEA=0.08.
107
CHAPTER- 6
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Discussion
One of the main purposes of this study was to investigate the degree of influence of
personality traits of consumer. The theoretical framework of the new product adoption
includes four constructs: (1) consumer innovativeness; (2) dogmatism; (3) social
character; and (4) need for uniqueness. The results are further discussed in the
following sections.
6.1.1 Influences of personality traits
The purpose of this study was only to affirm the relationship and impact of various
personality traits e.g.; dogmatism, social character, and need for uniqueness and new
product adoption behavior. Based on a priori conceptualization, it was presumed that
the consumer innovativeness will have a positive impact on new product adoption;
dogmatism will have a positive impact on Dogmatism will have a negative impact on
NPA (New Product Adoption); Social Character (Inner-directedness) will have a
negative impact on NPA (New Product Adoption); Social Character (Other-
directedness) will have a positive impact on NPA (New Product Adoption); and “Need
for uniqueness” will have a positive impact on NPA (New Product Adoption).
The evidence acquired in this study suggests that Consumer innovativeness has a
direct positive impact on new product adoption. The consumer innovativeness
accounts for 0.36 (p < .05) standardized regression coefficient to explain the adoption
intention. Thus, it affirms the hypothesis H1: Consumer Innovativeness will have a
positive impact on NPA (New Product Adoption) in other words it can be said that
null hypothesis “Ho: Consumer Innovativeness has no influence on NPA”. The results
for this construct are rejecting the null hypothesis.
Hence, indicating that the Consumer innovativeness can be used as dominant construct
to predict adoption intention. However, it is not necessarily the case that consumer
108
innovativeness only can predict adoption of new product intentions any more than
need for uniqueness construct because need for uniqueness also accounts for 0.69 (p <
.05) standardized regression coefficient to explain the adoption intention. Thus, it
also affirms the hypothesis H5: “Need for uniqueness” will have a positive impact on
NPA (New Product Adoption) or, null hypothesis “Ho: Need for uniqueness has no
influence on NPA” is rejected by the results of this study. Whenever, in case of
dogmatism trait (construct) which accounts for 0.03 (p > .05) standardized regression
coefficient to explain the adoption intention. Thus, it does not affirms the hypothesis
H2: Dogmatism will have a negative impact on NPA (New Product Adoption) The
result indicates that dogmatism cannot be used as dominant construct to predict
adoption intention. Similarly, in case of social character (inner- directedness) trait
(construct) which accounts for -0.02 (p > .05) standardized regression coefficient to
explain the adoption intention. Thus, it does not affirms the hypothesis H3: Social
Character (Inner-directedness) will have a negative impact on NPA (New Product
Adoption), and finally in case of social character (other- directedness) trait (construct)
which accounts for -0.09 (p > .05) standardized regression coefficient to explain the
adoption intention. Thus, it does not affirm the hypothesis H4: Social Character
(Other-directedness) will have a positive impact on NPA (New Product Adoption).
6.1.2 Limitations of the study
There are number of limitations of this study. First, the selected sample is representing
only few areas of rural population in a given geographic location, thus the results may
vary for other sample, in terms of size type, and procedure adopted in sampling;
second, the study is focusing only on fashion and clothing product category which
may be broaden to other categories of product and services; third, only selected
personality traits (consumer innovativeness, dogmatism, social character, and need for
uniqueness) are examined, whereas other traits can also be focused as well as other
theories of personality can be examined for this type of investigation.
109
6.1.3 Managerial implication
The managers, decision makers, and executives are keen interested in understanding
the real needs and possible behavior and response of the consumers toward new
offerings, thus introducing a new product is very sensitive and critical matter because
many products goes to fail even at introduction stage, whatever the reasons of failure
there may be but behavior of consumer particularly personality of a consumer is
contributing significant, dominant and influence on adopting a new product. Hence
this study will help managers and executives in understanding that how and at what
extent innovative consumers, high or low dogmatic consumers, inner directive and
other directive consumers, and those having need to be distinct and unique from others
influence on adopting a new product. This study has tried to respond by suggesting
that innovative minded and uniqueness seeking minded consumers are easily adopting
a new product at early stage and are dominant reasons for adopting new product.
6.1.4 Future research directions
Due to certain limitations of this study it is suggested that the future research should
be conducted, first; in terms of sample which is representing only selected areas of
rural population it can be measured for other areas and in different demographic
characteristics thus the results may vary for other sample, in terms of size type, and
procedure adopted in sampling; second, this study is focusing only on fashion and
clothing product category it could be extended to other categories of products or
services; and, third, this study is attempting to evaluate and examine the effects of
selective personality traits only whenever it can be extended to other personality traits
and as well as other personality theories.
6.2 Conclusions
In order to answer the research problem, the affective factors were extracted from the
relevant theories to new product adoption (fashion and clothing) as; acceptance theory
(Davis, 1989) and diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 1995) focusing on personal
and behavioral characteristics of consumers. On the basis of derived factors, the
110
research model of this study has been designed. This study emphasized on the
adoption of new product at early stage. Based on the results of the study it was
concluded through structural model which suggests that only two hypothesis were
confirmed as significant result that (NFU) Need For Uniqueness has positive impact
on NPA (New Product adoption) with Standardized regression coefficient 0.69 (p <
.05) and (CI) Consumer innovativeness has a positive significant impact on NPA
(New Product adoption) with standardized regression coefficient 0.36 (p < .05). Other
hypotheses such as influence of Dogmatism, Social Character inner-directed and
Social Character other-directed were not confirmed, as regression coefficients and
significance level was 0.03 (p > .05), -0.02 (p > .05) and -0.09 (p > .05) respectively.
Since it is concluded and recommended consumer personality traits of innovativeness
and need for uniqueness are significant and important factors for adoption of new
fashion and clothing products in a given market, thus the marketers should consider
these factors very cautiously while introducing their new offerings in these type of
markets.
111
REFERENCES
A.Tan &T. C. McAloone. (2008). Understanding and developing innovative product
or services: the essential elements, International Journal of Product Development,
Volume 6, Number 3-4, pp 420 – 430
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification, Harvard Business Review, volume
35, Number 5, pp113-24.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Gordon R. Foxall. 1996. "Construct Validation of a Measure
of Adaptive-lnnovative Cognitive Styles in Consumption." International Journal of
Research in Marketing 13:201-213.
Batterbery, M. and Batterbery A. (1977), Mirror, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Bettman, J.R. and C.W. Park (1980), "Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and
Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision-Processes - a Protocol Analysis,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 234-48.
Boulding, W., R. Morgan, and R. Staelin (1997), "Pulling the Plug to Stop the New
Product Drain," Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (February), 164.
Boyd, T.C. and C.H. Mason (1999), "The Link Between Attractiveness of 'Extrabrand'
Attributes and the Adoption of Innovations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 27 (3), 306-19.
Brian, B., Robert, P., and Richard, H. (1970), Dogmatism and acceptance of new
products, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol, VII, 483-486.
Brown, A. M. (2007). A cognitive approach to dogmatism: An investigation into the
relationship of verbal working memory and dogmatism, Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 946-952.
Burns, D. J. (1989). The need for uniqueness and the adoption process, Journal of
Midwest marketing, 4, 28-37.
Cacioppo, J.T., Kao, C.F., Petty, R.E. and Rodriguez, R. (1986), “Central and
peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 1032-43.
Chao, C.W., Reid, M., and Mavondo, F.T. (2012), Consumer innovativeness influence
on really new product adoption, Australasian Marketing Journal 20, 211–217
112
Conchar, M.P., G.M. Zinkhan, C. Peters, and S. Olavarrieta (2004), "An Integrated
Framework for the Conceptualization of Consumers? Perceived-Risk Processing,"
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (4), 436.
Cooper, R. G. (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure.
Journal of Marketing, volume, 43, pp93-103.
Cotte, J. and Wood, S. (2004), “Families and innovative consumer behavior: a triadic
study of siblings and parents”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 78-
86.
Cox, A.D., D. Cox, and G. Zimet (2006), "Understanding Consumer Responses to
Product Risk Information," Journal of Marketing, 70 (January), 91.
Crawford, C.M. (1977), "Marketing Research and the New Product Failure Rate,"
Journal of Marketing, 41 (April), 51-61.
David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, Reuel Denney (2001). The Lonely crowd: a study of
the changing American character. Yale University Press
Davies, M. F. (1993). Dogmatism and the persistence of discredited beliefs,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 692-699.
Davies, M. F. (1998). Dogmatism and belief formation: Output interference in the
processing of supporting and contradictory cognitions, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 456-466.
Dickerson, M.D. &Gentry, J.W. (1983), Characteristics of adopters of home
computers, Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 225-235.
Eng, T.Y. and G. Quaia (2009), trtategies for improving new product adoption in
uncertain environments: Aselective review of Literature. Industrial marketing
Management, 38 (3), 275-282.
Etzel, M.J., Donne, J.H. jr., & lvancevich, J.M. (1976), Social character and consumer
innovativeness, Journal of Social Psychology, 100(1), 153-154.
Ferrell, O.C. and M.D. Hartline (1998), Marketing Strategy: Dryden Press Fort Worth,
TX.
Fischer, G.W., M.F. Luce, and J. Jia (2000), "Attribute Conflict and Preference
Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error," Management Science, 46 (1), 103.
Foxall, Gordon R. 1988. Consumer Innovativeness: Novelty-Seeking, Creativity, and
Cognitive Style, Research in Consumer Behavior 3:79-113.
113
Fromkin, H. L., & Lipshitz, R. (1976, December). A construct validity method of scale
development: The uniqueness scale. (Institute for Research in Behavioral, Economic,
and management Sciences, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Paper No.591).
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Fruchter, B., Rokeach, M, ., & Novak, E. G. (1958). A factorial study of dogmatism,
opinionation, and related scales. Psychological Reports, 4, 19-22.
Fulford, Robert (July 3, 2002). “The Lonely Crowd (review)”.The National Post .
Retrieved 2006-11-29.
Ganster, D. C., McCuddy, M.K., & Fromkin, H.L. (1977, March). Magnitude of
similarity and self-steem: Replication and extension with uniqueness theory. (Institute
for Research in Behavioral, Economic, and management Sciences, Krannert Graduate
School of Management, Paper No.592). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Gatignon, H. and T.S. Robertson (1985), "A Propositional Inventory for New
Diffusion Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4), 849-67.
Geary, Daniel. "Children of The Lonely Crowd: David Riesman, the Young Radicals,
and the Splitting of Liberalism in the 1960s," Modern Intellectual History, Nov., 2013,
Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 603–633
Gitlin, Todd (May 24, 2002). “David Riesman, Thoughtful Pragmatist”. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved 2006-11-29.
Gokcen Coskuner and Ozlem Sandikci (2004), “New Clothing: Meanings and
Practices”, Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 31, 285-290.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Foxall, G. R. (2003). The Measurement of Innovativeness. In L.
V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 321-330): Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Goldsmith, R.E. (1984), Personality Characteristics Associated with Adoption-
Innovation, Journal of Psychology, 117(2), 159-165.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R., & Goldsmith, E. B. (2003), Innovative consumers and
Market Mavens, Journal of Marketing Theory & practice, 11(4), 54-64.
Goldstein, K. M., &. Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive style: Five approaches and
relevant research. New York: Wiley.
Gourville, J. (2004), "Why consumers don't buy: The psychology of new product
adoption," Harvard Business School Case Study Series, 9--504, 56, 17.
114
Gourville, J.T., 2006. Eager sellers stony buyers: understanding the psychology of
new-product adoption. Harvard Business Review, 99–106.
Gross, N. & Taves, M. J. (1952). Characteristics associated with acceptance of
recommended farm practices. Rural Sociology, volume17, pp 321-332.
Hanzaee, K. H, Attar, M.M, and Alikhan, F.(2011).Investigating the effect of gender
role attitude on the relationship between dimensions of religiosity and new product
adoption intention, World Applied Science Journal 13 (6), 1527-1536.
Hirschman, E.C. (1980), “Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 283-95.
Hirschman, E.C. (1984), “Experience seeking: a subjectivist perspective of
consumption”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 115-36.
Hirunyawipada, T. and Paswan, A.K. (2006), “Consumer innovativeness and
perceived risk: implications for high technology production adoption”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 182-98.
Hitesh Bhasin, (2006). “Personal factors affecting consumer buying behavior”. From
www.marketing91.com
Hoffmann, S. and Soyez, K., 2010, “A cognitive model to predict domain-specific
consumer innovativeness,” Journal of Business research, Vol.63, No.7, pp. 778-785.
Holak, S.L., 1988, “Determinants of Innovative durables adoption an empirical study
with implications for early product screening,” Journal Product Innovation
Management, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 50-73.
Holak, S.L., and Lehmann, D.R., 1990, Purchase Intentions and the dimensions of
Innovation: An Exploratory model,” Journal Product Innovation Management, Vol. 7,
No.1, pp. 59-73.
Hollander, A. (1980), Seeing Through Clothes. New York: Avon.
Hunt, M. F., & Miller, G. R. (1968). Open- and closed-mindedness, belief-discrepant
communication behavior, and tolerance for cognitive consistency, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 35-37.
Hurt, H.T., Joseph, K. and Cook, C.D., 1977, “Scale for the measurement of
innovativeness,” Human Communication research, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 58-65.
Im, S., B.L. Bayus, and C.H. Mason (2003), "An Empirical Study of Innate Consumer
Innovativeness, Personal Characteristics, and New-Product Adoption Behavior,"
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (1), 61-73.
115
Johnson, J. J. (2009). What's so wrong with being absolutely right: The dangerous
nature of dogmatic belief. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Karahanna, E., D.W. Straub, and N.L. Chervany (1999), "Information Technology
Adoption across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-
Adoption Beliefs," MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 183-213.
Kathleen Hamilton (2008), Character and Crime: an empirical test of Riesman's Inner
and Other directedness, A Thesis in Crime, Law, and Justice, The Pennsylvania State
University, The Graduate School Department of Sociology .
Kirton, Michael J. 1976. "Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure."
Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (5): 622-629.
Kleck, R. E., & Wheaton, J. (1967). Dogmatism and responses to opinion-consistent
and opinion-inconsistent information, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
5, 249-252.
Klonglan, G.E. and E.W. Coward Jr (1970), "The Concept of Symbolic Adoption: A
Suggested Interpretation," Rural Sociology, 35 (1), 77-83.
Konig, R. (1973), A la Mode. New York: Seabury.
Kotler, Philip, & G. Armstrong (2008). Principles of Marketing. 12th ed., Pearson
Education, Inc.
Kron, Joan (1983), Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration,
New York: Potter.
Labay, D.G. and T.C. Kinnear (1981), "Exploring the Consumer Decision Process in
the Adoption of Solar Energy Systems," The Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (3),
271-78.
Lavidge, R.J. and G.A. Steiner (1961), "A Model for Predictive Measurements of
Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Marketing, 25 (October), 59-62.
Leavitt, Clark and John Walton. 1975. "Development of a Scale for Innovativeness"
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2. Ed. Mary Jane Schlinger. Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, 545-554
Leone. (1989). Self-generated attitude change: Some effects of thought and dogmatism
on attitude polarization. Personality Individual Differences, 10, 243-1252.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997a). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-
uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1861-
1883.
116
Manning, K.C., W.O. Bearden, and T.J. Madden (1995), "Consumer Innovativeness
and the Adoption Process," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (4), 329-45.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, motion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
Martinex, Eva, Yolanda Polo, and Carlos Favian. 1998. "The Acceptance and
Diffusion of New Consumer Durables: Difference Between First and Last Adopter."
Journal of Consumer Marketing 15 (4): 323-342.
Marx, K. (1954), Capital vol.1 London: Lawrence and Wishart.
McAlister, L. & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary
Review. 15 (5): 269-288.
Midgley , D.F.,and Dowling, G.R. (Mar.1978), “Innovativeness: The concept and its
measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5. No. 4, pp. 229-242
Mittal, V., P. Kumar, and M. Tsiros (1999), "Attribute-Level Performance,
Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions over Time: A Consumption-System
Approach," Journal of Marketing, 63 (April), 88-101.
Morwitz, V. (1997), "Why Consumers Don't Always Accurately Predict Their Own
Future Behavior," Marketing Letters, 8 (1), 57-70.
Nail, Paul R. (1986), "Toward an Integration of Some Models and Theories of Social
Response," Psychological Bulletin, 100 (September), 190-206.
Olshavsky, R.W. and R.A. Spreng (1996), "An Exploratory Study of the Innovation
Evaluation Process," Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (6), 512-29.
Ostlund, Lyman E. 1974. "Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of
Innovativeness" Journal of Consumer Research 1 (September): 23-29.
Prochaska, J.O., C.C. DiClemente, and J.C. Norcross (1992), "In Search of How
People Change," American Psychologist, 47 (9), 1102-14.
R. J. Holloway, R. A. Mittelstaedt, & M. Venkatesan (Eds.), Consumer behavior.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971, Pp. 375-385.
Ram, S. and J.N. Sheth (1989), "Consumer Resistance to Innovations: The Marketing
Problem and Its Solutions," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6 (2), 5-14.
Riesman, David, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney (2001), The Lonely Crowd,
Revised edition: A Study of the Changing American Character: Yale University Press.
117
Robertson, T.S. (1971), Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer Innovativeness-Concepts and Measurements. Journal
of Business Research, 57(6), 671-677.
Rogers E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press, New York.
Rogers E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation (4th ed). Free Press, New York.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed). New York: Free Press.
Trondheim, Norway, 2002, pp. 101-110.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communications of Innovations. New
York: The Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1954). The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psychological Review,
61, 194-204.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Sarker, S., Bose, T.K., Palit, M., and , Haque, M. E. (2013), Influence of personality in
buying consumer goods-a comparative study between neo-Freudian theories and trait
theory based on Khulna region, International Journal of Business and Economics
Research, 2(3): 41-58
Schiffman, Leon G., & Kanuk, Leslie Lazer (2007). Consumer Behavior. 9th ed.,
Pearson Education, Inc.
Schiffman, L.G. Consumer Behavior / L.G. Schiffman, L.L. Kanuk. Prentice Hall,
2008, p. 114-141
Shih, C.F. and A. Venkatesh (2004), "Beyond Adoption: Development and
Application of a Use-Diffusion Model," Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 59-72.
Smith, R.E. and W.R. Swinyard (1982), "Information Response Models: An Integrated
Approach," Journal of Marketing, 46 (winter), 81-93.
Steenkamp, J.B. M., ter Hofstede, F., & wedel, M. (1999), A Cross-national
Investigation into the individual and National Cultural Antecedents of consumer
Innovativeness, Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 55-69.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and K. Gielens (2003), "Consumer and market drivers of the trial
probability of new consumer packaged goods," Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3),
368-84.
118
Summers, John O. 1971. "Generalized Change Agents and Innovativeness,' Journal of
Marketing Research 8 (August): 313-316.
Synde, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: the human pursuit of difference.
New York: Plenum Press.
Synder and Howard L. Fromkin (1977), "Abnormality as a Positive Characteristic:
The Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness," Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 86 (October), 518-527.
Synder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer
Catch-22 carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13 (1), 9-24.
Teppr, k., & Hoyle, R. H. (1996), Latent variable models of need for uniqueness,
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 467-494.
Tittler, B. I. (1974). A behavioral approach to the measurement of openness-to-
experience, Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 335-340.
Uhl, K., Andrus, R., and Poulson, L. (1970), How Are Laggards Different? An
Empirical Inquiry, Journal of marketing Research, 7(1), 51-54.
Van den Bulte, C. and G.L. Lilien (2002), "Two-Stage Partial Observability Models of
Innovation Adoption," Working paper.
Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of Leisure Class. New York: Macmillan.
Venkatraman, M.P. and MacInnis, D.J. (1985), “An investigation of the epistemic and
sensory exploratory behaviors of hedonic and cognitive consumers”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 102-7.
Venkatraman, M.P. and Price, L.L. (1990), “Differentiating between cognitive and
sensory innovativeness”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 293-315.
Veryzer, R.W. (1998), "Key Factors Affecting Customer Evaluation of Discontinuous
New Products," Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15 (2), 136-50.
Wang, Q., Dacko, S., and Gad, M. (2008), Factors Influencing Consumers’ Evaluation
and Adoption Intention of Really-New Products or Services: Prior Knowledge,
Innovativeness and Timing of Product Evaluation. Advances in Consumer Research,
Volume 35, 416-422.
Wilkening, E. A., Tully, J. & Presser, H. (1962), “Communication and acceptance of
recommended farm practices among dairy farmers of Northern Victoria”. Rural
Sociology, volume 27, pp116-197.
119
Willem and Geleen (2008) ‘essays on new product adoption and diffusion’ no. 423,
Tinbergen Institute Research Series.
Wilton, P.C. and E.A. Pessemier (1981), "Forecasting the Ultimate Acceptance of an
Innovation - The Effects of Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (2), 162-
71.
Workman, J. E., & Kidd, L. K. (2000). Use of the need for uniqueness scale to
characterize fashion consumer groups, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18(4),
227-236.
Yun, Z.S., S. Verma, Pysarchik, J.P. Yu, and S. Chowdhury (2008),Cultural
Influences on new product adoption of affluent comsumers in India. The international
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18 (2), 203-20.
Zuckerman, M. (1979), Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
120
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Dear Consumers/respondent:
I am a PhD research scholar at Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur, Sindh, researching on effects of consumer personality traits on new product adoption. I am conducting research to better understand consumers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions when purchasing clothing and fashion products. Your input is very important to my study. You are invited to voluntarily participate in this study. Please take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete this survey. Your answer will be kept confidential and anonymous.
Thank you in advance for your participation. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask the researchers. We would be glad to assist you. Sincerely, Mohammad Ismail Soomro, Ph.D student /Assistant Professor Department of Business Administrtaion
Shah Abdul Latif University, Sindh, Pakistan.
Directions:
The following statements concern your perceptions about yourself in a variety of situations. Your task is to indicate the strength of your agreement with each statement. For each statement, tick in the box from the following scale that most closely reflects you.
Consumer Innovativeness
Stron
-
gly
agree
(1)
Agre
e
(2)
Neithe
r agree
Nor
Disag
-ree
(3)
Disag
-
ree
(4)
Stron
-gly
Disag
-ree
(5)
1 I know more about new fashionable goods (e.g., clothing)
than other people do.
2 It is important for me to be a fashion leader.
3 I am aware of fashion trends and want to be one of the first to try them.
4 I am confident in my ability to recognize fashion trends.
5 I am the first to try new fashion; therefore, many people regard me as being a fashion leader.
121
6 I feel that I am an innovative
person.
Dogmatism
Stron
-
gly
agree
(1)
Agre
e
(2)
Neithe
r agree
Nor
Disag
-ree
(3)
Disag
-
ree
(4)
Stron
-gly
Disag
-ree
(5)
7 My decisions about purchase of
new products are right and will stand the test of time.
8 There are no discoveries or facts that could possibly make me
change my mind about the things that matter most in life.
9 I am absolutely certain that my ideas about the fundamental issues in life are correct.
10 I am so sure I am right about the important things in life; there is no evidence that could convince
me otherwise.
Social Character
Stron-
gly
agree
(1)
Agre
e
(2)
Neithe
r agree
Nor
Disag
-ree
(3)
Disag
-
ree
(4)
Stron
-gly
Disag
-ree
(5)
11 I’d like it if I could find someone
who would tell me how to solve my personal problems.
12 To follow others’ advice is to compromise on our own will and wish that’s betrayal of our own
freedom.
13 The principle “right of choice” can badly be destroyed when we ask others to choose a product for
us.
122
14 Before buying a product, I try to
learn what friends who posses this product think about it.
15 I seek out the opinion of those who have tried this product or brand before I try them.
16 I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of them
Need for Uniqueness (Creative choice/counterconformity)
Stron-
gly
agree
(1)
Agre
e
(2)
Neithe
r agree
Nor
Disag -ree
(3)
Disag
-
ree
(4)
Stron
-gly
Disag
-ree
(5)
17 When dressing, I have sometimes dared to be different in ways that others are likely to disapprove.
18 When products or brands I like become extremely popular, I lose interest in them.
19 I have sometimes purchased unusual fashion products or
brands as a way to create a more distinctive personal image.
20 I sometimes look for one-of-a-kind products or brands so that I
create a style that is all my own.
21 I avoid products or brands that have already been accepted and purchased by the average consumer.
22 Often when buying merchandise, an important goal is to find something that communicates my uniqueness
23 I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image for myself that can’t be duplicated
24 I often try to find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products because I enjoy being original
25 I actively seek to develop my per-sonal uniqueness by buying special products or brands
123
26 Having an eye for products that
are interesting and unusual assists me in establishing a distinctive image
54 The products and brands that I like best are the ones that express
my individuality.
27 I often think of the things I buy and do in terms of how I can use them to shape a more unusual
personal image
28 I'm often on the lookout for new products or brands that will add to my personal uniqueness
New product Adoption
Demographic Information
1. Gender: Male Female 2. Age: (years)
3. Education: Primary or Less Matriculation/Intermediate Graduate Masters MS/PhD
4. Occupation: Govt.Service Self employed Student Other 6. Monthly Family Household Income: Less than Rs.10, 000
29 I will try to buy one of the
clothing products as soon as I can.
30 I am likely to be one of the first persons to buy a new clothing fashion product.
31 I will probably purchase one of the new products soon after they are in the market.
124
Rs.10, 001- Rs.20, 000 Rs.20, 001- Rs.40, 000 Rs.40, 001 – Rs.60, 000 Rs.60, 001- Rs.80, 000
Rs.80, 001 – Rs.100, 000 More than Rs.100, 000
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
125
Appendix B: Model Fit Summary CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
Default model 51 843.767 202 .000 4.177
Saturated model 253 .000 0
Independence model 22 7863.726 231 .000 34.042
RMR, GFI
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
Default model .065 .849 .811 .678
Saturated model .000 1.000
Independence model .825 .131 .049 .120
Baseline Comparisons
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2 CFI
Default model .893 .877 .916 .904 .916
Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Parsimony-Adjusted Measures
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI
Default model .874 .781 .801
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1.000 .000 .000
NCP
Model NCP LO 90 HI 90
Default model 641.767 555.847 735.233
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 7632.726 7346.333 7925.460
FMIN
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Default model 1.967 1.496 1.296 1.714
Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000
Independence model 18.330 17.792 17.124 18.474
126
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model .086 .080 .092 .000
Independence model .278 .272 .283 .000
AIC
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Default model 945.767 951.545 1153.020 1204.020
Saturated model 506.000 534.665 1534.138 1787.138
Independence model 7907.726 7910.218 7997.129 8019.129
ECVI
Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
Default model 2.205 2.004 2.422 2.218
Saturated model 1.179 1.179 1.179 1.246
Independence model 18.433 17.765 19.115 18.439
HOELTER
Model HOELTER
.05
HOELTER
.01
Default model 121 128
Independence model 15 16
Minimization: .056
Miscellaneous: 1.523
Bootstrap: .000
Total: 1.579
127
Estimates (Group number 1 - Default model)
Scalar Estimates (Group number 1 - Default model) Maximum Likelihood Estimates
Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
Adoption <--- NFU .743 .127 5.865 *** par_20
Adoption <--- Innovativeness .263 .092 2.873 .004 par_21
nfu8 <--- NFU 1.000
nfu9 <--- NFU 1.169 .063 18.547 *** par_1
nfu10 <--- NFU 1.152 .066 17.493 *** par_2
nfu11 <--- NFU 1.043 .061 17.046 *** par_3
nfu12 <--- NFU 1.362 .069 19.884 *** par_4
nfu13 <--- NFU 1.538 .075 20.618 *** par_5
nfu7 <--- NFU 1.453 .072 20.139 *** par_6
nfu6 <--- NFU 1.035 .055 18.743 *** par_7
nfu5 <--- NFU .841 .061 13.857 *** par_8
nfu4 <--- NFU 1.467 .073 20.225 *** par_9
nfu3 <--- NFU 1.094 .068 16.209 *** par_10
nfu2 <--- NFU 1.039 .068 15.334 *** par_11
nfu1 <--- NFU .902 .062 14.534 *** par_12
innov6 <--- Innovativeness 1.000
innov5 <--- Innovativeness 1.013 .052 19.386 *** par_13
innov4 <--- Innovativeness .845 .043 19.512 *** par_14
innov3 <--- Innovativeness 1.091 .051 21.201 *** par_15
innov2 <--- Innovativeness 1.060 .050 21.179 *** par_16
innov1 <--- Innovativeness .742 .048 15.427 *** par_17
adop1 <--- Adoption .457 .040 11.464 *** par_18
adop2 <--- Adoption .847 .048 17.759 *** par_19
adop3 <--- Adoption 1.000
Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate
Adoption <--- NFU .583
Adoption <--- Innovativeness .271
nfu8 <--- NFU .776
nfu9 <--- NFU .806
nfu10 <--- NFU .769
nfu11 <--- NFU .756
nfu12 <--- NFU .850
nfu13 <--- NFU .873
128
Estimate
nfu7 <--- NFU .861
nfu6 <--- NFU .813
nfu5 <--- NFU .634
nfu4 <--- NFU .863
nfu3 <--- NFU .724
nfu2 <--- NFU .693
nfu1 <--- NFU .663
innov6 <--- Innovativeness .833
innov5 <--- Innovativeness .803
innov4 <--- Innovativeness .799
innov3 <--- Innovativeness .849
innov2 <--- Innovativeness .841
innov1 <--- Innovativeness .678
adop1 <--- Adoption .551
adop2 <--- Adoption .804
adop3 <--- Adoption .846
Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
NFU <--> Innovativeness .771 .070 10.964 *** par_22
e9 <--> e10 .134 .030 4.523 *** par_23
e6 <--> e4 -.101 .023 -4.356 *** par_24
e17 <--> e14 .126 .034 3.753 *** par_25
e18 <--> e17 -.116 .030 -3.881 *** par_26
Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate
NFU <--> Innovativeness .879
e9 <--> e10 .244
e6 <--> e4 -.237
e17 <--> e14 .214
e18 <--> e17 -.211
Variances: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
NFU .668 .070 9.509 *** par_27
Innovativeness 1.152 .111 10.419 *** par_28
e33 .337 .047 7.119 *** par_29
129
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
e8 .440 .032 13.814 *** par_30
e9 .493 .036 13.558 *** par_31
e10 .612 .044 13.799 *** par_32
e11 .545 .039 13.908 *** par_33
e12 .476 .036 13.190 *** par_34
e13 .491 .038 12.863 *** par_35
e7 .494 .038 13.090 *** par_36
e6 .367 .027 13.353 *** par_37
e5 .703 .049 14.278 *** par_38
e4 .491 .038 12.798 *** par_39
e3 .728 .052 14.044 *** par_40
e2 .780 .055 14.119 *** par_41
e1 .694 .049 14.209 *** par_42
e19 .507 .042 11.956 *** par_43
e18 .653 .053 12.400 *** par_44
e17 .465 .038 12.372 *** par_45
e16 .532 .045 11.936 *** par_46
e15 .535 .044 12.152 *** par_47
e14 .746 .055 13.621 *** par_48
e31 .425 .041 10.267 *** par_49
e30 .521 .038 13.693 *** par_50
e32 .433 .051 8.582 *** par_51
Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate
Adoption .690
adop3 .715
adop2 .647
adop1 .303
innov1 .460
innov2 .707
innov3 .720
innov4 .639
innov5 .644
innov6 .695
nfu1 .439
nfu2 .480
nfu3 .524
nfu4 .745
nfu5 .402
130
Matrices (Group number 1 - Default model)
nfu6 .661
nfu7 .741
nfu13 .763
nfu12 .723
nfu11 .571
nfu10 .592
nfu9 .650
nfu8 .603
131
Appendix C: Final model based on modification indices
