Consumer adoption of technological innovations

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This study seeks to investigate barriers in the consumer adoption process of technological innovations under different contingencies. The paper aims to focus on barriers impeding adoption of technologies characterized by high incompatibility and high uncertainty -i.e. a "lack of content" (LoC) situation -versus technologies characterized by low incompatibility and low uncertainty -i.e. a "presence of content" (PoC) situation. Design/methodology/approach -Based on a literature study, the paper develops hypotheses that distinguish the diverging effects of both psychological and functional barriers on consumer adoption in different situations (LoC versus PoC). Data were collected by means of a survey, resulting in an effective sample of 229 respondents. Findings -In the case of LoC, the value, risk (financial and performance) and image barrier are negatively related to adoption intention, where the latter barrier is significantly stronger for the LoC situation than for the PoC situation. For PoC, it is found that the value, image, and financial risk barriers are negatively related to adoption intention, where the value barrier outweighs all other barriers. Interestingly, the traditional barrier reveals a positive effect on adoption intention. Practical implications -The results suggest that managers and retailers should develop a more sophisticated understanding of consumers' adoption intention of new technologies. Distinguishing between LoC and PoC situations offers managers the opportunity to differentiate their communication strategies and design more compelling ways for consumers to overcome the specific barriers they perceive in each situation. Originality/value -The paper attempts to offer a more fine-grained understanding of consumer adoption by investigating the extent to which the lack versus the presence of content gives rise to differences regarding the effects of psychological and functional barriers to technology adoption.

Habit slips: when consumers unintentionally resist new products

“…Physical risk, or the possibility of physical harm due to the new product, may be common for some types of products (e.g., new food or health-related products) but should be relatively rare for most products (Stone and Grønhaug 1993). In contrast, functional or performance risk, involving concerns about whether the new product will perform reliably or interface seamlessly with complementary products or services, either existing or promised in the future, can cause many consumers to postpone adoption (Antioco and Kleijnen 2010;Szmigin and Foxall 1998). This may be a particularly serious issue for novel products that rely on co-evolving, compatible innovations (Bucklin and Sengupta 1993).…”

Consumer Resistance to Innovation in Services: Challenges and Barriers in the Internet of Things Era

“…The effect of usage barriers on consumers’ resistance is well documented and understood. Various studies point out that the perception of the complexity of using technological innovations makes consumers inclined to reject new services/products (Antioco and Kleijnen, ; Kuisma, Laukkanen, and Hiltunen, 2007; Laukkanen, ). For example, because mobile devices have small screens, inputting text is inconvenient, and so entering and reading data can be difficult (Bruner and Kumar, ).…”

“…On the one hand, according to Heinze, Thomann, and Fischer (), this model is based on past concepts that need to be adjusted in the digital age. On the other hand, Ram and Sheth's model is limited to studying only the functional and psychological barriers to explaining resistance to innovation (Antioco and Kleijnen, ; Heidenreich and Handrich, ). Indeed, this theoretical framework focuses on the situational antecedents of resistance and neglects the personal predispositions (Heidenreich and Handrich, ; Kleijnen et al., ; Roux, ) and demographic variables (Laukkanen, ).…”

Interest in Complex Novelty

“…Low coping potential might be one of the reasons why many complex novel products fail (Castellion & Markham, 2012;Cierpicki et al, 2000;Schneider & Hall, 2011), as the uncertainty about its meaning or purpose might result in resistance rather than acceptance (see also Antioco & Kleijnen, 2010;Castaño et al, 2008;Hoeffler, 2003;Kleijnen et al, 2009;Oreg & Goldenberg, 2015). The finding that increasing coping potential increases interest in complex novelty fits a more general perspective on knowing states (cf.…”

“…Complex novelty is the combination of atypicality/unfamiliarity (novelty) and difficulty understanding this at first sight (complexity: see also Berlyne, 1960Berlyne, , 1971Silvia, 2005). People may resist complex novelty because they experience uncertainty regarding its purpose and meaning (see also Antioco & Kleijnen, 2010;Castaño, Sujan, Kacker, & Sujan, 2008;Hoeffler, 2003;Kleijnen, Lee, & Wetzels, 2009;Oreg & Goldenberg, 2015). So, to become interested in complex novelty, it is key that people have a sense that they can cope with it.…”