- Email: [email protected]
Consumer innovativeness
Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671 – 677
Consumer innovativeness Concepts and measurements Gilles Roehrich* Ecole Supe´rieure des Affaires, BP 47X, 38040 cedex 9 Grenoble, France
Abstract Consumer innovativeness, as a force that leads to innovative behavior, has often been cited and studied in research on the diffusion of innovation. Surprisingly, it appears that there is still room for discussion about this concept. This article attempts to take stock of this issue. In the first part, the different theoretical definitions of the notion are introduced critically. The second part is devoted to displaying major measurement scales that have been designed with a view to measuring this construct. This review helps in understanding the diversity of approaches to innovativeness. It raises two main questions: (1) Are the different theoretical conceptualizations of innovativeness equally valid and compatible? (2) Do the scales really express each theoretical standpoint? This suggests that the present scales may be imperfect, and construction of a new one may well be of interest. D 2002 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Innovativeness; Measurement scales; Innovative behavior; New product; Innovation
1. Introduction As a marketing concept, innovativeness can at the very least be defined as imprecise. Firm innovativeness, or ‘‘creation of newness,’’ depicts a firm’s ability to develop and launch new products at a fast rate (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Product innovativeness, or ‘‘possession of newness,’’ is the degree of newness of a product (Daneels and Kleinsmith, 2001). Consumer innovativeness, or ‘‘consumption of newness,’’ is the tendency to buy new products more often and more quickly than other people (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). In this article, the word ‘‘innovativeness’’ will be used solely with reference to consumer innovativeness. There is no real consensus on the meaning of innovativeness. It may be described as early purchase of a new product (Cestre, 1996), as well as a tendency to be attracted by new products (Steenkamp et al., 1999). Following the distinction made by Midgley and Dowling (1978) between actualized and innate innovativeness, most authors seem to consider innovativeness a trait, the nature of which is still under question. The first part of this article presents the various
* Tel.: +33-4-76-82-78-66; fax: +33-4-76-82-59-99. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Roehrich). 0148-2963/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00311-9
conceptualizations of the consumer innate innovativeness construct found in the literature. Numerous scales have been created for the purpose of measuring innate innovativeness. A comparative analysis of the main scales found in the European and American literature is presented in the second part of this article.
2. The consumer innate innovativeness concept Innate innovativeness is a ‘‘predisposition to buy new and different products and brands rather than remain with previous choices and consumer patterns’’ (Steenkamp et al., 1999). What forces can explain such a predisposition? Four explanations have been proposed: (1) stimulation need, (2) novelty seeking, (3) independence toward others’ communicated experience and (4) need for uniqueness. 2.1. Innate innovativeness as an expression of the need for stimulation Hebb (1955) and Leuba (1955) seem to be the first to suggest that the individual seeks stimulation, and there is an individual optimal level of stimulation. After a thorough review of the different theories concerning this need, Venkatesan (1973) suggested that a relationship of direct
672
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677
dependency between the need for stimulation and innovative behavior should be considered. Building on Berlyne’s (1960) approach, he shows how new products can help people maintain their inner stimulation at an optimum level in different situations. Many empirical results (Mittelstaedt et al., 1976; Etzel and Wahlers, 1984; Valette-Florence and Roehrich, 1993, for example) validate this theoretical perspective. Going further, Raju (1980) suggests that innovativeness may intervene between need for stimulation and innovative behavior as a mediator variable. Empirical results showing a positive and significant relationship between need for stimulation and innovativeness support this proposition (Joachimstahler and Lastovicka, 1984; Wahlers et al., 1986; Roehrich, 1993). As a theoretical basis of many human activities, need for stimulation may be perceived as an antecedent of new product adoption, either directly or indirectly, through innovativeness. 2.2. Innate innovativeness as an expression of novelty seeking As proposed by Pearson (1970), inherent novelty seeking is an ‘‘internal drive or a motivating strength,’’ which motivates the individual search for new information. Hirschman (1980) asserts that inherent novelty seeking is ‘‘conceptually indistinguishable from the willingness to adopt new products.’’ She considers it a cardinal trait, linked to different forms of behavioral innovativeness through actualized novelty seeking. Actualized novelty seeking translates into a series of activities aimed at finding new information, which leads to three types of behavioral innovativeness: (1) informative innovativeness is the actual acquisition of new information about a new product, (2) adoptive innovativeness is the adoption of a new product and (3) use innovativeness, which has two expressions: (1) using a product in a different way or (2) knowing all the different uses of a specific product. This proposal broadens the scope of innovativeness from interest in new products to interest in any kind of newness: information, ideas or behavior. Venkatraman and Price (1990) also build on Pearson’s (1970) work to make the distinction between cognitive and sensory innovativeness: cognitive innovativeness is a ‘‘tendency to engage with pleasure in new experiences that stimulate thinking,’’ which may be either internal or external, whereas sensory innovativeness is ‘‘a tendency to engage with pleasure in internal experiences like fantasy, dreaming or stimulating and risky activities like ski jumping.’’ This latter innovativeness may be activated by stimuli, which can be internal (dreaming) as well as external (experiences). By focusing on novelty, Pearson (1970) and Hirschman (1980) push innovativeness beyond the realm of new product consumption. For Mudd (1990), rather than solving
questions about its nature, this adds more ambiguity to the concept. 2.3. Innovativeness as independence toward other’s communicated experience Midgley (1977) makes a clear distinction between innate innovativeness, a trait possessed by every human being, and actualized innovativeness, which is actual innovative behavior. Arguing that an innovator will be the first to use a new product, he defines innate innovativeness as ‘‘the degree to which an individual makes innovation decisions independently from the communicated experience of others.’’ Midgley and Dowling (1978) adopt this approach, but they question whether it might not be better to add ‘‘receptivity to new ideas’’ to Midgley’s definition. They finally choose to consider that ‘‘receptivity to new ideas’’ and ‘‘independence toward others’ communicated experience’’ may probably be equivalent. Certain empirical results tend to invalidate this theoretical position. Hirschman (1980) obtained a negative correlation between ‘‘receptivity to new ideas’’ and ‘‘independence of judgment in innovative decisions.’’ This result leads Hirschman to conclude that ‘‘these two operationalizations of innovativeness address probably two different domains of behavior.’’ Carlson and Grossbart (1984) and Bearden et al. (1986) obtain a positive but weak correlation between independence of judgment and innate tendency toward newness. Finally, the ‘‘independence in innovative decision’’ dimension of Le Louarn’s (1997) innovativeness scale is revealed to be independent of the ‘‘attraction to newness’’ dimension of the scale and of possession of new products. Although attractive, the proposal to consider innovativeness as an expression of independence of judgment lacks empirical support. We conclude that although useful in the innovative decision process, autonomy in decision may probably be neither an antecedent nor a facet of innovativeness. 2.4. Innovativeness as an expression of need for uniqueness Simonson and Nowlis (2000) recall that there is tension between two opposite objectives in decision making: conformity and distinction. According to Fromkin (1968), the need for uniqueness pushes the individual to distinguish himself through the possession of rare items, a socially accepted behavior. Snyder and Fromkin (1980) suggest three consequences of the need for uniqueness: (1) the absence of interest in the reaction of others to one’s own different ideas or acts, (2) the desire not to always follow the rules and (3) the willingness to publicly defend one’s opinions. Fromkin (1971) is the first to suggest a link between innovative behavior and need for uniqueness, whereas Gatignon and Robertson (1985) conclude that ‘‘consumers
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677
673
who depend highly on normative influences (desire for conformity) adopt more slowly.’’ Burns and Krampf (1991) provide the first empirical validation of this theoretical proposition. They demonstrate positive correlation between need for uniqueness and the number of new products possessed. Moreover, this correlation was higher for new products than for new brands. Although supported by only a few empirical results, Fromkin’s sound theoretical proposal suggests that the need for uniqueness can be considered to be a credible antecedent of innovativeness. Firstly, because innovativeness is an easy way to satisfy the need for uniqueness and, secondly, because need for uniqueness includes independence in judgment, which is necessary for innovative purchasing.
solutions within an organization. Finally, Hurt and Alii define innovativeness as ‘‘change willingness.’’ Moreover, two of these scales have a ‘‘creativity’’ dimension, which indicates that the innovativeness concept they measure is not limited to newness consumption. Little research has been undertaken on the Leavitt and Walton’s (see Bearden et al., 1993 for a presentation) and Hurt– Joseph – Cook’s (see Pallister and Foxall, 1995 for a recent study) scales. Kirton’s innovators –adaptators inventory (KAI) raised a far greater interest in the research community (see Mudd, 1995; Foxall, 1995 or Bagozzi and Foxall, 1996 for an overview). Some general conclusions can be drawn from these studies:
2.5. Discussion
There is no consensus in the definition of innovativeness. From ‘‘inherent novelty seeking,’’ which may have consequences other than new product buying behavior, to ‘‘predisposition to buy new products,’’ which defines the concept by its main consequence, through ‘‘independence in innovative decisions,’’ which could not be empirically validated, various authors have given different views of the concept. There is no consensus either on the roots of innovativeness. Of the need for stimulation, novelty seeking, independence in judgment and the need for uniqueness, which are true antecedents of innovativeness? Analysis of existing innovativeness scales may provide insights into these questions.
3. Operational measurements of innovativeness Since the mid-1970s, a stream of research has led to the design of innovativeness scales through a structured validation process. Most of these scales are different in terms of their theoretical premise and internal structure. The resulting set of scales therefore lacks homogeneity. The most representative scales are presented below in two groups: firstly, ‘‘life innovativeness’’ scales, i.e., the ability to introduce newness in one’s life, will be briefly described. Then ‘‘adoptive innovativeness’’ scales will be more thoroughly presented.
These scales tap innovativeness at a high level: items describe attraction to any kind of newness, not only new product attraction; These scales are multidimensional: seven dimensions for Leavitt and Walton’s 24-item scale, three for Kirton’s 32item inventory, four (or five) for Hurt– Joseph – Cook’s 20-item scale; These scales have good psychometric properties, except for predictive validity: only weak correlations, if any, have been found with new product purchase. These scales are very close to each other: Goldsmith and Nugent (1984), then Goldsmith (1990) obtain very high correlation coefficients between the Hurt – Joseph – Cook’s and Leavitt –Walton’s scales (between 0.64 and 0.82) and between the Hurt– Joseph – Cook’s and Kirton’s scales (0.55). These scales do measure very similar concepts. The way their authors present them, their poor predictive validity with new product purchase and the reading of their items (face validity) suggests that they tap inherent novelty seeking more than specific innovativeness. 3.2. Adoptive innovativeness scales The scales presented under this heading have been specifically designed to measure innovativeness as a tendency to buy new products.
3.1. Life innovativeness scales
Table 1 Item sample of the RAJU’s innovativeness scale
Leavitt and Walton’s (1975), Kirton’s (1976) and Hurt et al.’s (1977) scales are included in this category. They are named ‘‘life innovativeness’’ because their scopes go beyond the sole adoption of new products. For example, Leavitt and Walton view innovativeness as a trait ‘‘that underlies the intelligent, creative, selective use of communication for solving problems.’’ Kirtons defines ‘‘innovators’’ as those who tend to search for new problems and original
When I see a new or different brand on a shelf, I often pick it up just to see what it is like A new store or restaurant is not something I would be eager to find out about I am very cautious in trying new/different products I would rather wait for others to try a new store or restaurant than try it myself Investigating new brands of grocery and other similar products is generally a waste of time
674
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677
3.2.1. Raju’s (1980) scale Raju’s (1980) innovativeness scale is part of a broader scale designed to measure consumer tendencies toward ‘‘exploratory behavior.’’ It consists of 10 items (see items sample in Table 1), 7 of which are common with other dimensions of his exploratory tendencies scale. Only one of these items has any social content: I would rather wait for others to try a new store or restaurant than try it myself. The author’s results show good internal consistency and high correlation with a sensation seeking scale. These results are partly confirmed by Joachimsthaler and Lastovicka (1984), Wahlers and Dunn (1987) and Wahlers et al. (1986). This scale has been criticized for its structure. After a review of the criticisms (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1996), the authors propose a modified scale. 3.2.2. Baumgartner and Steenkamp’s exploratory product acquisition These authors distinguish only two dimensions of exploratory buying behavior: exploratory acquisition of products (EAP) and exploratory information seeking (EIS). For them, ‘‘consumers who are high on EAP enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar products, are willing to try out new and innovative products, value variety in making product choices, and change their purchase behavior in an effort to attain stimulating consumption experiences.’’ This EAP 10-item scale (items sample are presented in Table 2) is highly correlated with such constructs as stimulation need (.45) and sensory sensation seeking (.43). Its predictive validity is confirmed by correlations with variety seeking behavior (.25) and innovative behavior (.16). Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1996) confirm a significant correlation between EAP and the possession of 46 new products. 3.2.3. Goldsmith and Hofacker’s scale The originality of the scale designed by these authors is that it measures domain-specific innovativeness, which is a ‘‘tendency to learn about and adopt innovations (new products) within a specific domain of interest.’’ They perceive this construct as intermediary between innate innovativeness and innovative behavior, which is empirically, but moderately, validated by Goldsmith et al. (1995). Four of the six items in this scale (Table 3) describe social innovativeness, as the interviewee is compared with others. This scale proved to be unidimensional and highly reliable. Predictive validity is high, with correlations ranTable 2 Item sample of Baumgartner and Steenkamp’s EAP scale I would rather stick to a brand I usually buy than try something I am not very sure of When I go to restaurant, I feel it is safer to order dishes I am familiar with If I like a brand, I rarely switch from it just to try something different I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands just to get some variety in my purchase When I see a new brand on the shelf, I’m not afraid of giving it a try
Table 3 Domain specific innovativeness scale Compared to my friends, I own few rock albums In general, I am the last in my circle of friends to know the titles of the latest rock albums In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy a new rock album when it appears If I heard that a new rock album was available in the store, I would be interested enough to buy it I will buy a new rock album, even if I haven’t heard it yet I know the names of new rock acts before other people do
ging from .38 to .63 with new-product purchase. However, the correlation between that scale and an opinion leadership scale (.78 and .80) questions its discriminant validity. Nyeck et al. (1996) used this scale in an international study (Canada, Israel, France). Their results tend to confirm those of Goldsmith and Hofacker, although predictive validity is lower and factorial structure of lesser quality, as for Goldsmith et al. (1995). 3.2.4. Roehrich’s (1995) scale For Roehrich, innovativeness is an expression of two central needs: need for stimulation (Berlyne, 1960) and need for uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980). Consequently, his scale comprises two dimensions: hedonist innovativeness (tied to need for stimulation) and social innovativeness (tied to need for uniqueness). Significant items are displayed in Table 4. Internal consistency, trait validity and nomological validity seem acceptable, except for correlations with mental rigidity (up to .42) and dogmatism (from .19 to .37). Correlation with need for stimulation is as expected (from .16 to .18), but surprisingly no correlation with need for uniqueness is presented. Predictive validity tends to be higher (r=.31) with the number of new products purchased than with innovative purchase intention (between 0 and .30). This result is consistent with Midgley and Dowling’s proposal. Other studies using this scale (Roehrich, 1987; D’Hauteville, 1994) confirm these results. 3.2.5. Le Louarn’s scale Building on the works of Midgley and Dowling on one hand and Hirschman on the other, Le Louarn (1997) defines predisposition to innovate as ‘‘a central predisposition to take innovative decisions, which expresses itself at every Table 4 Item sample of Roehrich’s innovativeness scale (free translation) Hedonist innovativeness
Social innovativeness
I am more interested in buying new than known products I like to buy new and different products New products excite me I am usually among the first to try new products I know more than others on latest new products I try new products before my friends and neighbors
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677 Table 5 Item sample of Le Louarn’s innovativeness scale (free translation) Attraction to newness
Autonomy in innovative decision
Ability to take risks in trying newness
I am the kind of person who tries every new product at least once When I hear about a new product, I try to know more about at the first occasion Before trying a new product, I try to learn what friends who possess this product think about it I seek out the opinion of those who have tried new products or brands before I try them I’d rather choose a brand that I usually buy rather than try something I am not confident in I never buy something I don’t know anything about with the risk of making a mistake
level of human activity.’’ At product consumption level, this predisposition has three main expressions. Table 5 displays items from the three facets of this scale. This scale has proved to have good psychometric properties (internal consistency and validity). Its predictive validity is good: R2 between the score and early new product purchase intention is up to .23. Of the three dimensions, which surprisingly appear to correlate poorly, only newness attractiveness is correlated with innovative behavior.
4. Discussion Except for a few results (relative to factorial structure or some correlations), the scales reviewed in this second part show good psychometric properties. However, they differ in many dimensions. We will concentrate on four of them: dimensionality, implicit content, level of measurement and predictive validity. As a whole, these scales tap different dimensions, the most specific for innovation diffusion are: newness attraction/repulsion (Leavitt and Walton; Hurt, Joseph and Cook; Raju, Baumgartner and Steenkamp; Goldsmith and Hofacker; Roehrich; Le Louarn scales), creativity/originality (Kirton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook scales), risk attraction/ aversion (Leavitt and Walton; Le Louarn scales), attention to others’ opinion (Leavitt and Walton; Le Louarn scales). The implicit content of the scales refers to the ‘‘individual-social’’ dimension of innovativeness. Some items are
675
centered on individual innovativeness (I like to buy new products), whereas others imply a comparison (I like to buy new products before others). We call this dimension implicit because, except for Roehrich and for Steenkamp and Baumgartner (whose scale does not include any ‘‘social’’ item), it is not explicitly mentioned in the theoretical description of the innovativeness concept. A study of the wording of the items reveals that innovativeness dimensions are measured at different levels: at general level, any kind of newness (products, ideas, behaviors, etc.) is concerned. At product level, the items are about innovations or new products (except for EAP scale, which mainly concentrates on different products, either new or unknown) . At domain-specific level, the items are about new products in a specific product category. It is not obvious whether a ‘‘yes’’ at one level would be equivalent to a ‘‘yes’’ at the other one. Finally, as already mentioned by Foxall (1995), the scales’ predictive validity may be disappointing. Most scales demonstrate very low correlation, if any, with innovative behavior. Goldsmith and Hofacker’s domain-specific scale appears to be an exception with a correlation of up to .64. However, this latter correlation seems to be exceptional, as most of the coefficients obtained with this scale are significantly lower, but still greater than .30. This correlation therefore appears to be a reasonable level for innovativeness, as it is obtained by scales from Le Louarn, Roehrich, Steenkamp and Baumgartner or Raju. Finally, we try to link predictive validity with dimensionality and level of measurement of the scales (Table 6). This table clearly demonstrates that when measured at a general level, innovativeness has no predictive validity. When measured at product consumption level, attraction toward newness and social innovativeness dimensions have average predictive validity. The best predictive validity is reached by domain-specific measurement of social innovativeness, which dominates individual innovativeness in the Goldsmith and Hofacker’s scale. Dimensions such as independence of judgment, attitude toward risk/ change or creativity have no predictive validity. Midgley and Dowling (1978) distinguish three levels of innovative behavior: (1) the purchase of a single new
Table 6 Predictive validity of the innovativeness scales, depending on their subdimensions and level of measurement
Newness attraction (individual) Social context
Independence of judgement Attitude toward risk/change Creativity
General behavior
Product consumption
Domain-specific consumption
No predictive validity (Leavitt and Walton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook) No predictive validity (Leavitt and Walton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook)
Low to average predictive validity (Raju, Steenkamp and Baumgartner, Roehrich, Le Louarn) Low to average predictive validity (Roehrich)
Average to high predictive validity (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991)
No predictive validity (Leavitt and Walton) No predictive validity (Kirton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook)
No predictive validity (Le Louarn) No predictive validity (Le Louarn)
676
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677
Table 7 Different levels of predictive validity
Mono products
Mono category
Roehrich (1995)
Le Louarn (1997)
From 0.09 to 0.30 (about 0.15 on the average) 0.26 (perfumes)
From 0.07 to 0.48 (about 0.15 on the average) 0.32 (electronic appliances) –
Multicategories 0.31
Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996) 0.16
– –
product, (2) the purchase of new products in a single product category and (3) the purchase of new products in any product category. They hypothesize that the role of innovativeness, at the new product attraction level, becomes easier to isolate as the level of innovative behavior rises. Results displayed in Table 7 provide some support for this hypothesis.
5. Summary and future research Of the dimensions which constitute the internal structure of innovativeness scales, two appear to be of great interest: attraction toward newness (individual innovativeness) and speed of adoption (social innovativeness). The former can be found in all the scales presented here, whereas the latter is explicitly included in only one scale, although implicitly present in most. Although common to every scale, individual innovativeness is theoretically linked to different roots: novelty seeking (Le Louarn) or need for stimulation (Raju, Roehrich, Steenkamp and Baumgartner). However, reading the items shows that they are quite similar despite the theoretical differences. Moreover, each scale contains social items, although only one author explicitly identifies this theoretical dimension of innovativeness. These remarks raise the general question of the link between the theoretical foundations of a scale and the wording of the items. Whether individual or social, innovativeness seems to be able to tap on average only about 10% of innovative behavior. Two possible explanations will be pointed out here. Innovativeness is secondary in explaining innovative behavior: most of the explanatory power may come from the way the new product is perceived (Ostlund, 1974; Roehrich, 2001) or from other intervening variables (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). What does ‘‘new product’’ mean for the interviewee? New products belong to a continuum from ‘‘highly continuous’’ to ‘‘highly discontinuous.’’ Do we really know the level at which respondents give their answer? People who want to change their world may not be interested in buying a new detergent; and people who feel adventurous when buying a new perfume may have a low score on innovativeness.
Consequently, further research into the study of innovativeness and its consequences may be helpful. Firstly, an integrative model of innovativeness is needed. This model should simultaneously offer a structured representation of the different levels at which the innovativeness construct has been conceptualized and the theoretical roots of this construct. It should include the different dimensions of innovativeness. Secondly, this model should provide the theoretical foundation for the construction of innovativeness scales, each tapping the phenomena at a specific level and including items specific to the hypothetical dimensions of innovativeness. References Bagozzi RP, Foxall GR. Construct validation of a measure of adaptive – innovative cognitive styles in consumption. Int J Res Mark 1996;13: 201 – 13. Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J-BEM. Exploratory consumer buying behavior: conceptualization and measurement. Int J Res Mark 1996;13: 121 – 37. Bearden WO, Calcich SE, Netemeyer R, Tell FE. An exploratory investigation of consumer innovativeness and interpersonal influences. In: Richard JL, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 13. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer, 1986. p. 77 – 82. Bearden WO, Netemeyer R, Mobley MF. Handbook of marketing scales. Newburg Park, California: Sage Publication, 1993. Berlyne DE. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Burns DJ, Krampf RF. A semiotic perspective on innovative behavior. Developments in marketing science. 15th Annual Conference, Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 14. 1991;32 – 5. Carlson L, Grossbart SL. Toward a better understanding of inherent innovativeness. In: Russel WB, Robert AP, editors. Proceeding of the A.M.A. educator’s conference. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1984. p. 88 – 91. Cestre G. Diffusion et innovativite´: de´finition, mode´lisation et mesure. Rech Appl Mark 1996;11(1):69 – 88. Daneels E, Kleinsmith EJ. Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. J Prod Innov Manage 2001;18(6):357 – 73 (November). Etzel MJ, Wahlers RG. Optimal stimulation level and consumer travel preferences. In: Russel WB, Robert AP, editors. Proceeding of the A.M.A. educator’s conference. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1984. p. 92 – 5. Foxall GR. Cognitive styles of consumer initiators. Technovation 1995; 15(5):269 – 89. Fromkin HL. Affective and valuational consequences of self-perceived uniqueness deprivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1968. Fromkin HL. A social psychological analysis of the adoption and diffusion of new products and practices from a uniqueness motivation perspective. In: David MG, editor. 2nd annual conference. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 1971. p. 464 – 9. Gatignon H, Robertson TS. A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. J Consum Res 1985;11:849 – 67 (March). Goldsmith RE. The validity of scale to measure global innovativeness. J Appl Bus Res 1990;7(2):89 – 97. Goldsmith RE, Hofacker CF. Measuring consumer innovativeness. J Acad Mark Sci 1991;19(3):209 – 22 (summer). Goldsmith RE, Nugent N. Innovativeness and cognitive complexity: a second look. Psychol Rep 1984;55:431 – 8. Goldsmith RE, Freiden JB, Eastman JK. The generality/specificity issue in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation 1995;15(10):601 – 13.
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677 D’Hauteville F. Un mode`le d’acceptation du nouveau produit par le consommateur: cas du vin alle´ge´ en alcool. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montpellier II, 1994. Hebb DD. Drives and the C.N.S. (central nervous system). Psychol Rev 1995;62:243 – 54. Hirschman EC. Innovativeness, novelty seeking and consumer creativity. J Consum Res 1980;7:283 – 95 (December). Hurley RF, Hult GTM. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Mark 1998;62(3): 42 – 54. Hurt HT, Joseph K, Cook C. Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Hum Commun Res 1977;4(1):58 – 65. Joachimsthaler EA, Lastovicka JL. Optimal stimulation level: exploratory behavior models. J Consum Res 1984;11:830 – 5 (December). Kirton M. Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. J Appl Psychol 1976;61(5):622 – 9. Le Louarn P. La tendance a` innover des consommateurs: analyse conceptuelle et proposition d’une e´chelle de mesure. Rech Appl Mark 1997; 12(1):3 – 20. Leavitt C, Walton J. Development of a scale for innovativeness. In: Schlinger MJ, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 2. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 1975. p. 545 – 54. Leuba C. Toward some integration of learning theories: the concept of optimal stimulation. Psychol Rep 1995;1:27 – 33. Midgley D. Innovation and new product marketing. Londres: Croom Helm, 1977. Midgley D, Dowling GR. Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement. J Consum Res 1978;4:229 – 42. Mittelstaedt RA, Grossbart SL, Curtis WW, Devere SP. Optimal stimulation level and the adoption decision process. J Consum Res 1976;3:84 – 94 (September). Mudd S. The place of innovativeness in models of the adoption process: an integrative review. Technovation 1990;10(2):119 – 36. Mudd S. Kirton adaptation – innovation theory: organizational implications. Technovation 1995;15(3):165 – 76. Nyeck S, Sylvie P, Xuereb J-M, Chebat JC. Standardisation ou adaptation des e´chelles de mesure a` travers diffe´rents contextes nationaux: l’exemple d’une e´chelle de mesure de l’innovativite´. Rech Appl Mark 1996;11(3):57 – 74. Ostlund LE. Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness. J Consum Res 1974;1:23 – 9 (September). Pallister JG, Foxall GR. Psychometric properties of the Hurt – Joseph –
677
Cook scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Technovation 1995;18(11):663 – 75. Pearson PH. Relationships between global and specific measures of novelty seeking. J Consult Clin Psychol 1970;34:199 – 204. Raju PS. Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics and exploratory behavior. J Consum Res 1980;7:272 – 82 (December). Roehrich G. Nouveaute´ perc˛ue d’une innovation. Rech Appl Mark 1987; 2(1):1 – 15. Roehrich G. Les consommateurs innovateurs: un essai d’identification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ecole Supe´rieure des Affaires de Grenoble, 1993. Roehrich G. Innovativite´s he´doniste et sociale: proposition d’une e´chelle de mesure. Rech Appl Mark 1995;9(2):19 – 41. Roehrich G. Causes de l’achat d’un nouveau produit: variables individuelles ou caracte´ristiques perc˛ues? Rev Fr Mark 2001;182(2001/2): 83 – 98. Simonson I, Nowlis SM. The role of explanation and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choice based on reason. J Consum Res 2000;27(1):49 – 68 (June). Snyder CR, Fromkin HC. Uniqueness: the human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum, 1980. Steenkamp JBEM, Hofstede F ter, Wedel M. A cross-national comparison into the national and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. J Mark 1999;63(2):55 – 69. Steenkamp JBEM, Van Trijp HCM. To buy or not to buy? Modeling purchase of new products using marketing mix variables and consumer characteristics. Gainesville, FL: Marketing Science Conference, 1996. Valette-Florence P, Roehrich G. Une approche causale du comportement innovateur. Econ Soc Se´r Sci Gestion 1993;19:75 – 106 (October, SG). Venkatesan M. Cognitive consistency and novelty seeking. In: Ward S, Robertson TS, editors. Consumer behavior – theoretical sources. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973. p. 355 – 84. Venkatraman MP, Price LL. Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness. J Bus Rev 1990;20:293 – 315. Wahlers RG, Dunn MG. Optimal stimulation level measurement and exploratory behavior: review and analysis. AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, San Antonio, TX.1987;249 – 54. Wahlers RG, Dunn MG, Etzel MJ. The convergence of alternative OSL measures with consumer exploratory behavior tendencies. In: Richard JL, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 13. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1986. p. 398 – 402.
Consumer innovativeness Concepts and measurements Gilles Roehrich* Ecole Supe´rieure des Affaires, BP 47X, 38040 cedex 9 Grenoble, France
Abstract Consumer innovativeness, as a force that leads to innovative behavior, has often been cited and studied in research on the diffusion of innovation. Surprisingly, it appears that there is still room for discussion about this concept. This article attempts to take stock of this issue. In the first part, the different theoretical definitions of the notion are introduced critically. The second part is devoted to displaying major measurement scales that have been designed with a view to measuring this construct. This review helps in understanding the diversity of approaches to innovativeness. It raises two main questions: (1) Are the different theoretical conceptualizations of innovativeness equally valid and compatible? (2) Do the scales really express each theoretical standpoint? This suggests that the present scales may be imperfect, and construction of a new one may well be of interest. D 2002 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Innovativeness; Measurement scales; Innovative behavior; New product; Innovation
1. Introduction As a marketing concept, innovativeness can at the very least be defined as imprecise. Firm innovativeness, or ‘‘creation of newness,’’ depicts a firm’s ability to develop and launch new products at a fast rate (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Product innovativeness, or ‘‘possession of newness,’’ is the degree of newness of a product (Daneels and Kleinsmith, 2001). Consumer innovativeness, or ‘‘consumption of newness,’’ is the tendency to buy new products more often and more quickly than other people (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). In this article, the word ‘‘innovativeness’’ will be used solely with reference to consumer innovativeness. There is no real consensus on the meaning of innovativeness. It may be described as early purchase of a new product (Cestre, 1996), as well as a tendency to be attracted by new products (Steenkamp et al., 1999). Following the distinction made by Midgley and Dowling (1978) between actualized and innate innovativeness, most authors seem to consider innovativeness a trait, the nature of which is still under question. The first part of this article presents the various
* Tel.: +33-4-76-82-78-66; fax: +33-4-76-82-59-99. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Roehrich). 0148-2963/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00311-9
conceptualizations of the consumer innate innovativeness construct found in the literature. Numerous scales have been created for the purpose of measuring innate innovativeness. A comparative analysis of the main scales found in the European and American literature is presented in the second part of this article.
2. The consumer innate innovativeness concept Innate innovativeness is a ‘‘predisposition to buy new and different products and brands rather than remain with previous choices and consumer patterns’’ (Steenkamp et al., 1999). What forces can explain such a predisposition? Four explanations have been proposed: (1) stimulation need, (2) novelty seeking, (3) independence toward others’ communicated experience and (4) need for uniqueness. 2.1. Innate innovativeness as an expression of the need for stimulation Hebb (1955) and Leuba (1955) seem to be the first to suggest that the individual seeks stimulation, and there is an individual optimal level of stimulation. After a thorough review of the different theories concerning this need, Venkatesan (1973) suggested that a relationship of direct
672
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677
dependency between the need for stimulation and innovative behavior should be considered. Building on Berlyne’s (1960) approach, he shows how new products can help people maintain their inner stimulation at an optimum level in different situations. Many empirical results (Mittelstaedt et al., 1976; Etzel and Wahlers, 1984; Valette-Florence and Roehrich, 1993, for example) validate this theoretical perspective. Going further, Raju (1980) suggests that innovativeness may intervene between need for stimulation and innovative behavior as a mediator variable. Empirical results showing a positive and significant relationship between need for stimulation and innovativeness support this proposition (Joachimstahler and Lastovicka, 1984; Wahlers et al., 1986; Roehrich, 1993). As a theoretical basis of many human activities, need for stimulation may be perceived as an antecedent of new product adoption, either directly or indirectly, through innovativeness. 2.2. Innate innovativeness as an expression of novelty seeking As proposed by Pearson (1970), inherent novelty seeking is an ‘‘internal drive or a motivating strength,’’ which motivates the individual search for new information. Hirschman (1980) asserts that inherent novelty seeking is ‘‘conceptually indistinguishable from the willingness to adopt new products.’’ She considers it a cardinal trait, linked to different forms of behavioral innovativeness through actualized novelty seeking. Actualized novelty seeking translates into a series of activities aimed at finding new information, which leads to three types of behavioral innovativeness: (1) informative innovativeness is the actual acquisition of new information about a new product, (2) adoptive innovativeness is the adoption of a new product and (3) use innovativeness, which has two expressions: (1) using a product in a different way or (2) knowing all the different uses of a specific product. This proposal broadens the scope of innovativeness from interest in new products to interest in any kind of newness: information, ideas or behavior. Venkatraman and Price (1990) also build on Pearson’s (1970) work to make the distinction between cognitive and sensory innovativeness: cognitive innovativeness is a ‘‘tendency to engage with pleasure in new experiences that stimulate thinking,’’ which may be either internal or external, whereas sensory innovativeness is ‘‘a tendency to engage with pleasure in internal experiences like fantasy, dreaming or stimulating and risky activities like ski jumping.’’ This latter innovativeness may be activated by stimuli, which can be internal (dreaming) as well as external (experiences). By focusing on novelty, Pearson (1970) and Hirschman (1980) push innovativeness beyond the realm of new product consumption. For Mudd (1990), rather than solving
questions about its nature, this adds more ambiguity to the concept. 2.3. Innovativeness as independence toward other’s communicated experience Midgley (1977) makes a clear distinction between innate innovativeness, a trait possessed by every human being, and actualized innovativeness, which is actual innovative behavior. Arguing that an innovator will be the first to use a new product, he defines innate innovativeness as ‘‘the degree to which an individual makes innovation decisions independently from the communicated experience of others.’’ Midgley and Dowling (1978) adopt this approach, but they question whether it might not be better to add ‘‘receptivity to new ideas’’ to Midgley’s definition. They finally choose to consider that ‘‘receptivity to new ideas’’ and ‘‘independence toward others’ communicated experience’’ may probably be equivalent. Certain empirical results tend to invalidate this theoretical position. Hirschman (1980) obtained a negative correlation between ‘‘receptivity to new ideas’’ and ‘‘independence of judgment in innovative decisions.’’ This result leads Hirschman to conclude that ‘‘these two operationalizations of innovativeness address probably two different domains of behavior.’’ Carlson and Grossbart (1984) and Bearden et al. (1986) obtain a positive but weak correlation between independence of judgment and innate tendency toward newness. Finally, the ‘‘independence in innovative decision’’ dimension of Le Louarn’s (1997) innovativeness scale is revealed to be independent of the ‘‘attraction to newness’’ dimension of the scale and of possession of new products. Although attractive, the proposal to consider innovativeness as an expression of independence of judgment lacks empirical support. We conclude that although useful in the innovative decision process, autonomy in decision may probably be neither an antecedent nor a facet of innovativeness. 2.4. Innovativeness as an expression of need for uniqueness Simonson and Nowlis (2000) recall that there is tension between two opposite objectives in decision making: conformity and distinction. According to Fromkin (1968), the need for uniqueness pushes the individual to distinguish himself through the possession of rare items, a socially accepted behavior. Snyder and Fromkin (1980) suggest three consequences of the need for uniqueness: (1) the absence of interest in the reaction of others to one’s own different ideas or acts, (2) the desire not to always follow the rules and (3) the willingness to publicly defend one’s opinions. Fromkin (1971) is the first to suggest a link between innovative behavior and need for uniqueness, whereas Gatignon and Robertson (1985) conclude that ‘‘consumers
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677
673
who depend highly on normative influences (desire for conformity) adopt more slowly.’’ Burns and Krampf (1991) provide the first empirical validation of this theoretical proposition. They demonstrate positive correlation between need for uniqueness and the number of new products possessed. Moreover, this correlation was higher for new products than for new brands. Although supported by only a few empirical results, Fromkin’s sound theoretical proposal suggests that the need for uniqueness can be considered to be a credible antecedent of innovativeness. Firstly, because innovativeness is an easy way to satisfy the need for uniqueness and, secondly, because need for uniqueness includes independence in judgment, which is necessary for innovative purchasing.
solutions within an organization. Finally, Hurt and Alii define innovativeness as ‘‘change willingness.’’ Moreover, two of these scales have a ‘‘creativity’’ dimension, which indicates that the innovativeness concept they measure is not limited to newness consumption. Little research has been undertaken on the Leavitt and Walton’s (see Bearden et al., 1993 for a presentation) and Hurt– Joseph – Cook’s (see Pallister and Foxall, 1995 for a recent study) scales. Kirton’s innovators –adaptators inventory (KAI) raised a far greater interest in the research community (see Mudd, 1995; Foxall, 1995 or Bagozzi and Foxall, 1996 for an overview). Some general conclusions can be drawn from these studies:
2.5. Discussion
There is no consensus in the definition of innovativeness. From ‘‘inherent novelty seeking,’’ which may have consequences other than new product buying behavior, to ‘‘predisposition to buy new products,’’ which defines the concept by its main consequence, through ‘‘independence in innovative decisions,’’ which could not be empirically validated, various authors have given different views of the concept. There is no consensus either on the roots of innovativeness. Of the need for stimulation, novelty seeking, independence in judgment and the need for uniqueness, which are true antecedents of innovativeness? Analysis of existing innovativeness scales may provide insights into these questions.
3. Operational measurements of innovativeness Since the mid-1970s, a stream of research has led to the design of innovativeness scales through a structured validation process. Most of these scales are different in terms of their theoretical premise and internal structure. The resulting set of scales therefore lacks homogeneity. The most representative scales are presented below in two groups: firstly, ‘‘life innovativeness’’ scales, i.e., the ability to introduce newness in one’s life, will be briefly described. Then ‘‘adoptive innovativeness’’ scales will be more thoroughly presented.
These scales tap innovativeness at a high level: items describe attraction to any kind of newness, not only new product attraction; These scales are multidimensional: seven dimensions for Leavitt and Walton’s 24-item scale, three for Kirton’s 32item inventory, four (or five) for Hurt– Joseph – Cook’s 20-item scale; These scales have good psychometric properties, except for predictive validity: only weak correlations, if any, have been found with new product purchase. These scales are very close to each other: Goldsmith and Nugent (1984), then Goldsmith (1990) obtain very high correlation coefficients between the Hurt – Joseph – Cook’s and Leavitt –Walton’s scales (between 0.64 and 0.82) and between the Hurt– Joseph – Cook’s and Kirton’s scales (0.55). These scales do measure very similar concepts. The way their authors present them, their poor predictive validity with new product purchase and the reading of their items (face validity) suggests that they tap inherent novelty seeking more than specific innovativeness. 3.2. Adoptive innovativeness scales The scales presented under this heading have been specifically designed to measure innovativeness as a tendency to buy new products.
3.1. Life innovativeness scales
Table 1 Item sample of the RAJU’s innovativeness scale
Leavitt and Walton’s (1975), Kirton’s (1976) and Hurt et al.’s (1977) scales are included in this category. They are named ‘‘life innovativeness’’ because their scopes go beyond the sole adoption of new products. For example, Leavitt and Walton view innovativeness as a trait ‘‘that underlies the intelligent, creative, selective use of communication for solving problems.’’ Kirtons defines ‘‘innovators’’ as those who tend to search for new problems and original
When I see a new or different brand on a shelf, I often pick it up just to see what it is like A new store or restaurant is not something I would be eager to find out about I am very cautious in trying new/different products I would rather wait for others to try a new store or restaurant than try it myself Investigating new brands of grocery and other similar products is generally a waste of time
674
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677
3.2.1. Raju’s (1980) scale Raju’s (1980) innovativeness scale is part of a broader scale designed to measure consumer tendencies toward ‘‘exploratory behavior.’’ It consists of 10 items (see items sample in Table 1), 7 of which are common with other dimensions of his exploratory tendencies scale. Only one of these items has any social content: I would rather wait for others to try a new store or restaurant than try it myself. The author’s results show good internal consistency and high correlation with a sensation seeking scale. These results are partly confirmed by Joachimsthaler and Lastovicka (1984), Wahlers and Dunn (1987) and Wahlers et al. (1986). This scale has been criticized for its structure. After a review of the criticisms (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1996), the authors propose a modified scale. 3.2.2. Baumgartner and Steenkamp’s exploratory product acquisition These authors distinguish only two dimensions of exploratory buying behavior: exploratory acquisition of products (EAP) and exploratory information seeking (EIS). For them, ‘‘consumers who are high on EAP enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar products, are willing to try out new and innovative products, value variety in making product choices, and change their purchase behavior in an effort to attain stimulating consumption experiences.’’ This EAP 10-item scale (items sample are presented in Table 2) is highly correlated with such constructs as stimulation need (.45) and sensory sensation seeking (.43). Its predictive validity is confirmed by correlations with variety seeking behavior (.25) and innovative behavior (.16). Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1996) confirm a significant correlation between EAP and the possession of 46 new products. 3.2.3. Goldsmith and Hofacker’s scale The originality of the scale designed by these authors is that it measures domain-specific innovativeness, which is a ‘‘tendency to learn about and adopt innovations (new products) within a specific domain of interest.’’ They perceive this construct as intermediary between innate innovativeness and innovative behavior, which is empirically, but moderately, validated by Goldsmith et al. (1995). Four of the six items in this scale (Table 3) describe social innovativeness, as the interviewee is compared with others. This scale proved to be unidimensional and highly reliable. Predictive validity is high, with correlations ranTable 2 Item sample of Baumgartner and Steenkamp’s EAP scale I would rather stick to a brand I usually buy than try something I am not very sure of When I go to restaurant, I feel it is safer to order dishes I am familiar with If I like a brand, I rarely switch from it just to try something different I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands just to get some variety in my purchase When I see a new brand on the shelf, I’m not afraid of giving it a try
Table 3 Domain specific innovativeness scale Compared to my friends, I own few rock albums In general, I am the last in my circle of friends to know the titles of the latest rock albums In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy a new rock album when it appears If I heard that a new rock album was available in the store, I would be interested enough to buy it I will buy a new rock album, even if I haven’t heard it yet I know the names of new rock acts before other people do
ging from .38 to .63 with new-product purchase. However, the correlation between that scale and an opinion leadership scale (.78 and .80) questions its discriminant validity. Nyeck et al. (1996) used this scale in an international study (Canada, Israel, France). Their results tend to confirm those of Goldsmith and Hofacker, although predictive validity is lower and factorial structure of lesser quality, as for Goldsmith et al. (1995). 3.2.4. Roehrich’s (1995) scale For Roehrich, innovativeness is an expression of two central needs: need for stimulation (Berlyne, 1960) and need for uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980). Consequently, his scale comprises two dimensions: hedonist innovativeness (tied to need for stimulation) and social innovativeness (tied to need for uniqueness). Significant items are displayed in Table 4. Internal consistency, trait validity and nomological validity seem acceptable, except for correlations with mental rigidity (up to .42) and dogmatism (from .19 to .37). Correlation with need for stimulation is as expected (from .16 to .18), but surprisingly no correlation with need for uniqueness is presented. Predictive validity tends to be higher (r=.31) with the number of new products purchased than with innovative purchase intention (between 0 and .30). This result is consistent with Midgley and Dowling’s proposal. Other studies using this scale (Roehrich, 1987; D’Hauteville, 1994) confirm these results. 3.2.5. Le Louarn’s scale Building on the works of Midgley and Dowling on one hand and Hirschman on the other, Le Louarn (1997) defines predisposition to innovate as ‘‘a central predisposition to take innovative decisions, which expresses itself at every Table 4 Item sample of Roehrich’s innovativeness scale (free translation) Hedonist innovativeness
Social innovativeness
I am more interested in buying new than known products I like to buy new and different products New products excite me I am usually among the first to try new products I know more than others on latest new products I try new products before my friends and neighbors
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677 Table 5 Item sample of Le Louarn’s innovativeness scale (free translation) Attraction to newness
Autonomy in innovative decision
Ability to take risks in trying newness
I am the kind of person who tries every new product at least once When I hear about a new product, I try to know more about at the first occasion Before trying a new product, I try to learn what friends who possess this product think about it I seek out the opinion of those who have tried new products or brands before I try them I’d rather choose a brand that I usually buy rather than try something I am not confident in I never buy something I don’t know anything about with the risk of making a mistake
level of human activity.’’ At product consumption level, this predisposition has three main expressions. Table 5 displays items from the three facets of this scale. This scale has proved to have good psychometric properties (internal consistency and validity). Its predictive validity is good: R2 between the score and early new product purchase intention is up to .23. Of the three dimensions, which surprisingly appear to correlate poorly, only newness attractiveness is correlated with innovative behavior.
4. Discussion Except for a few results (relative to factorial structure or some correlations), the scales reviewed in this second part show good psychometric properties. However, they differ in many dimensions. We will concentrate on four of them: dimensionality, implicit content, level of measurement and predictive validity. As a whole, these scales tap different dimensions, the most specific for innovation diffusion are: newness attraction/repulsion (Leavitt and Walton; Hurt, Joseph and Cook; Raju, Baumgartner and Steenkamp; Goldsmith and Hofacker; Roehrich; Le Louarn scales), creativity/originality (Kirton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook scales), risk attraction/ aversion (Leavitt and Walton; Le Louarn scales), attention to others’ opinion (Leavitt and Walton; Le Louarn scales). The implicit content of the scales refers to the ‘‘individual-social’’ dimension of innovativeness. Some items are
675
centered on individual innovativeness (I like to buy new products), whereas others imply a comparison (I like to buy new products before others). We call this dimension implicit because, except for Roehrich and for Steenkamp and Baumgartner (whose scale does not include any ‘‘social’’ item), it is not explicitly mentioned in the theoretical description of the innovativeness concept. A study of the wording of the items reveals that innovativeness dimensions are measured at different levels: at general level, any kind of newness (products, ideas, behaviors, etc.) is concerned. At product level, the items are about innovations or new products (except for EAP scale, which mainly concentrates on different products, either new or unknown) . At domain-specific level, the items are about new products in a specific product category. It is not obvious whether a ‘‘yes’’ at one level would be equivalent to a ‘‘yes’’ at the other one. Finally, as already mentioned by Foxall (1995), the scales’ predictive validity may be disappointing. Most scales demonstrate very low correlation, if any, with innovative behavior. Goldsmith and Hofacker’s domain-specific scale appears to be an exception with a correlation of up to .64. However, this latter correlation seems to be exceptional, as most of the coefficients obtained with this scale are significantly lower, but still greater than .30. This correlation therefore appears to be a reasonable level for innovativeness, as it is obtained by scales from Le Louarn, Roehrich, Steenkamp and Baumgartner or Raju. Finally, we try to link predictive validity with dimensionality and level of measurement of the scales (Table 6). This table clearly demonstrates that when measured at a general level, innovativeness has no predictive validity. When measured at product consumption level, attraction toward newness and social innovativeness dimensions have average predictive validity. The best predictive validity is reached by domain-specific measurement of social innovativeness, which dominates individual innovativeness in the Goldsmith and Hofacker’s scale. Dimensions such as independence of judgment, attitude toward risk/ change or creativity have no predictive validity. Midgley and Dowling (1978) distinguish three levels of innovative behavior: (1) the purchase of a single new
Table 6 Predictive validity of the innovativeness scales, depending on their subdimensions and level of measurement
Newness attraction (individual) Social context
Independence of judgement Attitude toward risk/change Creativity
General behavior
Product consumption
Domain-specific consumption
No predictive validity (Leavitt and Walton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook) No predictive validity (Leavitt and Walton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook)
Low to average predictive validity (Raju, Steenkamp and Baumgartner, Roehrich, Le Louarn) Low to average predictive validity (Roehrich)
Average to high predictive validity (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991)
No predictive validity (Leavitt and Walton) No predictive validity (Kirton, Hurt, Joseph and Cook)
No predictive validity (Le Louarn) No predictive validity (Le Louarn)
676
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677
Table 7 Different levels of predictive validity
Mono products
Mono category
Roehrich (1995)
Le Louarn (1997)
From 0.09 to 0.30 (about 0.15 on the average) 0.26 (perfumes)
From 0.07 to 0.48 (about 0.15 on the average) 0.32 (electronic appliances) –
Multicategories 0.31
Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996) 0.16
– –
product, (2) the purchase of new products in a single product category and (3) the purchase of new products in any product category. They hypothesize that the role of innovativeness, at the new product attraction level, becomes easier to isolate as the level of innovative behavior rises. Results displayed in Table 7 provide some support for this hypothesis.
5. Summary and future research Of the dimensions which constitute the internal structure of innovativeness scales, two appear to be of great interest: attraction toward newness (individual innovativeness) and speed of adoption (social innovativeness). The former can be found in all the scales presented here, whereas the latter is explicitly included in only one scale, although implicitly present in most. Although common to every scale, individual innovativeness is theoretically linked to different roots: novelty seeking (Le Louarn) or need for stimulation (Raju, Roehrich, Steenkamp and Baumgartner). However, reading the items shows that they are quite similar despite the theoretical differences. Moreover, each scale contains social items, although only one author explicitly identifies this theoretical dimension of innovativeness. These remarks raise the general question of the link between the theoretical foundations of a scale and the wording of the items. Whether individual or social, innovativeness seems to be able to tap on average only about 10% of innovative behavior. Two possible explanations will be pointed out here. Innovativeness is secondary in explaining innovative behavior: most of the explanatory power may come from the way the new product is perceived (Ostlund, 1974; Roehrich, 2001) or from other intervening variables (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). What does ‘‘new product’’ mean for the interviewee? New products belong to a continuum from ‘‘highly continuous’’ to ‘‘highly discontinuous.’’ Do we really know the level at which respondents give their answer? People who want to change their world may not be interested in buying a new detergent; and people who feel adventurous when buying a new perfume may have a low score on innovativeness.
Consequently, further research into the study of innovativeness and its consequences may be helpful. Firstly, an integrative model of innovativeness is needed. This model should simultaneously offer a structured representation of the different levels at which the innovativeness construct has been conceptualized and the theoretical roots of this construct. It should include the different dimensions of innovativeness. Secondly, this model should provide the theoretical foundation for the construction of innovativeness scales, each tapping the phenomena at a specific level and including items specific to the hypothetical dimensions of innovativeness. References Bagozzi RP, Foxall GR. Construct validation of a measure of adaptive – innovative cognitive styles in consumption. Int J Res Mark 1996;13: 201 – 13. Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J-BEM. Exploratory consumer buying behavior: conceptualization and measurement. Int J Res Mark 1996;13: 121 – 37. Bearden WO, Calcich SE, Netemeyer R, Tell FE. An exploratory investigation of consumer innovativeness and interpersonal influences. In: Richard JL, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 13. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer, 1986. p. 77 – 82. Bearden WO, Netemeyer R, Mobley MF. Handbook of marketing scales. Newburg Park, California: Sage Publication, 1993. Berlyne DE. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Burns DJ, Krampf RF. A semiotic perspective on innovative behavior. Developments in marketing science. 15th Annual Conference, Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 14. 1991;32 – 5. Carlson L, Grossbart SL. Toward a better understanding of inherent innovativeness. In: Russel WB, Robert AP, editors. Proceeding of the A.M.A. educator’s conference. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1984. p. 88 – 91. Cestre G. Diffusion et innovativite´: de´finition, mode´lisation et mesure. Rech Appl Mark 1996;11(1):69 – 88. Daneels E, Kleinsmith EJ. Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. J Prod Innov Manage 2001;18(6):357 – 73 (November). Etzel MJ, Wahlers RG. Optimal stimulation level and consumer travel preferences. In: Russel WB, Robert AP, editors. Proceeding of the A.M.A. educator’s conference. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1984. p. 92 – 5. Foxall GR. Cognitive styles of consumer initiators. Technovation 1995; 15(5):269 – 89. Fromkin HL. Affective and valuational consequences of self-perceived uniqueness deprivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1968. Fromkin HL. A social psychological analysis of the adoption and diffusion of new products and practices from a uniqueness motivation perspective. In: David MG, editor. 2nd annual conference. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 1971. p. 464 – 9. Gatignon H, Robertson TS. A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. J Consum Res 1985;11:849 – 67 (March). Goldsmith RE. The validity of scale to measure global innovativeness. J Appl Bus Res 1990;7(2):89 – 97. Goldsmith RE, Hofacker CF. Measuring consumer innovativeness. J Acad Mark Sci 1991;19(3):209 – 22 (summer). Goldsmith RE, Nugent N. Innovativeness and cognitive complexity: a second look. Psychol Rep 1984;55:431 – 8. Goldsmith RE, Freiden JB, Eastman JK. The generality/specificity issue in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation 1995;15(10):601 – 13.
G. Roehrich / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 671–677 D’Hauteville F. Un mode`le d’acceptation du nouveau produit par le consommateur: cas du vin alle´ge´ en alcool. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montpellier II, 1994. Hebb DD. Drives and the C.N.S. (central nervous system). Psychol Rev 1995;62:243 – 54. Hirschman EC. Innovativeness, novelty seeking and consumer creativity. J Consum Res 1980;7:283 – 95 (December). Hurley RF, Hult GTM. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Mark 1998;62(3): 42 – 54. Hurt HT, Joseph K, Cook C. Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Hum Commun Res 1977;4(1):58 – 65. Joachimsthaler EA, Lastovicka JL. Optimal stimulation level: exploratory behavior models. J Consum Res 1984;11:830 – 5 (December). Kirton M. Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. J Appl Psychol 1976;61(5):622 – 9. Le Louarn P. La tendance a` innover des consommateurs: analyse conceptuelle et proposition d’une e´chelle de mesure. Rech Appl Mark 1997; 12(1):3 – 20. Leavitt C, Walton J. Development of a scale for innovativeness. In: Schlinger MJ, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 2. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 1975. p. 545 – 54. Leuba C. Toward some integration of learning theories: the concept of optimal stimulation. Psychol Rep 1995;1:27 – 33. Midgley D. Innovation and new product marketing. Londres: Croom Helm, 1977. Midgley D, Dowling GR. Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement. J Consum Res 1978;4:229 – 42. Mittelstaedt RA, Grossbart SL, Curtis WW, Devere SP. Optimal stimulation level and the adoption decision process. J Consum Res 1976;3:84 – 94 (September). Mudd S. The place of innovativeness in models of the adoption process: an integrative review. Technovation 1990;10(2):119 – 36. Mudd S. Kirton adaptation – innovation theory: organizational implications. Technovation 1995;15(3):165 – 76. Nyeck S, Sylvie P, Xuereb J-M, Chebat JC. Standardisation ou adaptation des e´chelles de mesure a` travers diffe´rents contextes nationaux: l’exemple d’une e´chelle de mesure de l’innovativite´. Rech Appl Mark 1996;11(3):57 – 74. Ostlund LE. Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness. J Consum Res 1974;1:23 – 9 (September). Pallister JG, Foxall GR. Psychometric properties of the Hurt – Joseph –
677
Cook scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Technovation 1995;18(11):663 – 75. Pearson PH. Relationships between global and specific measures of novelty seeking. J Consult Clin Psychol 1970;34:199 – 204. Raju PS. Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics and exploratory behavior. J Consum Res 1980;7:272 – 82 (December). Roehrich G. Nouveaute´ perc˛ue d’une innovation. Rech Appl Mark 1987; 2(1):1 – 15. Roehrich G. Les consommateurs innovateurs: un essai d’identification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ecole Supe´rieure des Affaires de Grenoble, 1993. Roehrich G. Innovativite´s he´doniste et sociale: proposition d’une e´chelle de mesure. Rech Appl Mark 1995;9(2):19 – 41. Roehrich G. Causes de l’achat d’un nouveau produit: variables individuelles ou caracte´ristiques perc˛ues? Rev Fr Mark 2001;182(2001/2): 83 – 98. Simonson I, Nowlis SM. The role of explanation and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choice based on reason. J Consum Res 2000;27(1):49 – 68 (June). Snyder CR, Fromkin HC. Uniqueness: the human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum, 1980. Steenkamp JBEM, Hofstede F ter, Wedel M. A cross-national comparison into the national and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. J Mark 1999;63(2):55 – 69. Steenkamp JBEM, Van Trijp HCM. To buy or not to buy? Modeling purchase of new products using marketing mix variables and consumer characteristics. Gainesville, FL: Marketing Science Conference, 1996. Valette-Florence P, Roehrich G. Une approche causale du comportement innovateur. Econ Soc Se´r Sci Gestion 1993;19:75 – 106 (October, SG). Venkatesan M. Cognitive consistency and novelty seeking. In: Ward S, Robertson TS, editors. Consumer behavior – theoretical sources. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973. p. 355 – 84. Venkatraman MP, Price LL. Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness. J Bus Rev 1990;20:293 – 315. Wahlers RG, Dunn MG. Optimal stimulation level measurement and exploratory behavior: review and analysis. AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, San Antonio, TX.1987;249 – 54. Wahlers RG, Dunn MG, Etzel MJ. The convergence of alternative OSL measures with consumer exploratory behavior tendencies. In: Richard JL, editor. Advances in consumer research, vol. 13. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1986. p. 398 – 402.