Dual Path Impacts of the Consumer Innovativeness in the New Products Adoption Situation

소비자의 감각적 혁신성향과 인지적 혁신성향이 신제품 구매의도에 미치는 이중 경로

  • Received : 2011.06.10
  • Accepted : 2011.08.09
  • Published : 2011.08.28


There are many researches about effects of consumer innovativeness on the new product adoption behavior. However most of these studies regard this construct as one dimensional concept so that the extant studies suggest very ambiguous results about the relationship between consumer innovativeness and adoption behavior. This study subdivides the construct as cognitive innovativeness and sensory one and suggest these two types of consumer innovativeness affect on the risk perception of the potential adopter differently when the consumer adopt new product. In the empirical research through regression analysis and structure equation model with 217 samples, the study shows the consumer who have high level of cognitive innovativeness are more sensitive to functional risk of new products compared to one who have high level of sensory innovativeness. On the other side, sensory innovative consumer perceive social risk more when they adopt new products than cognitive innovator who have higher level of cognitive innovativeness. The result means there are dual paths on the relationship between consumer innovativeness and new products adoption behavior. Unlike the early studies, this study shows that there's dual path in relationship between the consumer's innovativeness and new product adoption. That is the consumer who have higher sensory innovativeness perceive the social risk of new products more sensitively than functional risk but the consumer who have cognitive innovativeness perceive functional risk more. So, new product adoption behavior would be different depending on the sensory or cognitive innovativeness.


Cognitive Innovativeness;Sensory Innovativeness;Functional Risk;Social Risk;New Product Adoption


Supported by : 충남대학교


  1. D. F. Midgley and G. R. Dowling, "Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement," Journal of Consumer Research, Mar. Vol.4, Issue.4, pp.229-242, 1978.
  2. E. C. Hirschman, "Experience seeking: a subjectivist perspective of consumption," Journal of Business Research, Vol.12, No.1, pp.115-36, 1984.
  3. R. E. Goldsmith and C, F. Hofacker, "Measuring consumer innovativeness," Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.19, No.3, pp.209-21, 1991.
  4. P. S. Raju, "Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics, and exploratory behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.7, No.3, pp.272-82, 1980.
  5. E. M. Steenkamp and H. Baumgartner, "The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.19, Issue 3, p434-448, 1992(12).
  6. M. Schreier, S. Oberhauser, and R. Prügl, "Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities," Marketing Letters, Vol.18, Issue 1/2, p.15-30, 2007(1).
  7. P. H. Pearson, "Relationship Between Global and Specific Measures of Novelty Seeking," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol.34, pp.199-204. 1970.
  8. S. L. Wood, J. Swait, "Psychological Indicators of Innovation Adoption: Cross-Classification Based on Need for Cognition and Need for Change," Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.12, Issue.1, pp.1-13, 2002.
  9. M. P. Venkatraman, and L. L. Price, "Differentiating Between Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness: Concepts, Measurement, and Implications," Journal of Business Research, Vol.20, Issue,4, pp.293-315, 1990(6).
  10. C. P. Haugtvedt and R. E, "Personality and Persuasion: Need for Cognition Moderates the Persistence and Resistance of Attitude Changes," .Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol.63, pp.308-319, 1992(8).
  11. M. Zuckerman, Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1979.
  12. R. A. Mittelstaedt, S. L. Grossbart, W. W. Curtis, and S. P. Devere, "Optimal Stimulation Level and the Adoption Decision Process," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.3, pp.84-94, 1976(9).
  13. S. Ram and J. N. Sheth, "Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.6, No.2, pp.5-14, 1989.
  14. V. Mitchell, F. Davies, L. Moutinho, and V. Vassos, "Using neural networks to understand service risk in the holiday product," Journal of Business Research, Vol.46, No.2, pp.167-80, 1999.
  15. G. R. Dowling and R. Staelin, "A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.21, No.1, pp.119-34, 1994.
  16. E. U. Weber and C. Hsee, "Cross-cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, Vol.44, pp.1205-1217, 1998(9).
  17. J. Cherry and J. Fraedrich, "Perceived risk, moral philosophy and marketing ethics: mediating influences on sales managers' ethical decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Vol.55 No.12, pp.951-62, 2002.
  18. J. Jacoby and L. B. Kaplan, "The components of perceived risk," in Venkatesan, M. (Eds), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference, Iowa City, 1972.
  19. U. M. Dholakia, "A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception," European Journal of Marketing, Vol.35, No.11/12, pp.1340-60, 2001.
  20. S. Ram and J. N. Sheth, "Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.6, No.2, pp.5-14, 1989.
  21. M. Perry and B. C. Hamm, "Canonical Analysis of Relations between Socioeconomic Risk and Personal Influence in Purchase Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.6, pp.351-354, 1969(8).
  22. R. J. Lutz and P. J. Reilly, "An Exploration of the Effects of Perceived Social and Performance Risk on Consumer Information," Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.1, pp.393-405, 1974.
  23. F. M. Bass, "A New product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, Vol.15, pp.215-227, 1969(1).
  24. E. Martinez, Y. Polo, and C. Flavian, "The acceptance and diffusion of new consumer durables: differences between first and last adopters," Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.15, pp.319-342, 1998.
  25. S. Im, B. L. Bayus, and C. H. Mason, "An empirical study of global consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior," Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.31, No.1, pp.61-73, 2003.
  26. H. Gatignon, and T. S, "A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.11, pp.849-867, 1985(3).
  27. N. Venlcatraman, IT Induced Business Reconfiguration, in the corporation of the 1990s, M.S.Scott Morton(ed). Oxford University Press. New York, 1991.
  28. Hoeffler and Steve, Measuring Performances for Really New Products, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.40, pp.406-420, 2003(11).
  29. J. P. Peter and Tarpey, L., A Comparative analysis of three consumer decision strategies. Journal of consumer research, pp.29-37, 1975.
  30. R. W. Mitchell and P. Baustarti, A Preliminary investigation into pre- and post-purchase risk perception and reduction, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.28, pp.56-71.
  31. M. Schreier and R. Prugl, Exteding leading user theory : Antecedents and consequences of consumer`s lead userness, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2006.
  32. Tietz, Robert, D. Pameda, Morrison, C. Luthje, and C. Herstatt, The Process of user innovation : A case study in a Consumer Goods Setting, International Journal of Product Development, Vol.2, No.4, pp.321-338, 2005.

Cited by

  1. A study on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions for 3D printed products in the fashion industry vol.26, pp.6, 2018,