An empirical study on the adoption of information appliances with a focus on interactive TV

Innovation diffusion: The need for more accurate consumer insight. Illustration of the PSAP scale as a segmentation instrument

“…[31][32][33][34] Segment profiles based on demographics, media usage and media ownership -traditionally assumed to be applicable to several products and product categories -are not that reliable anymore. Therefore, in line with authors stating 'attitudinal variables' to be more powerful predictors of innovative adoption behaviour when compared to the above-mentioned demographic and media-related variables, 35,36 many emphasised the importance of predictors or adoption determinants such as 'social influence', 37,38 'network externalities', 39,40 'perceived complexity', 41,42 'perceived trialability', 43,44 'perceived compatibility', 45,46 'relative advantage', 47,48 'willingness to pay', 49,50 'optimism', 51,52 'tangibles', 53,54 and 'image'. 55,56 In addition, however, perceptions of these factors are not always that consistent anymore, a theory put forward in previous research.…”

Adopter segments, adoption determinants and mobile marketing

“…Lifestyle compatibility (7,39) and observability (12,17), however, seem to be totally unimportant for later adopters, something that is confi rmed in the equally low score for network externalities (37). It is remarkable that even the later adopters do not think that mobile television is a complex technology ( complexity 8,20,29). They even consider themselves perfectly capable of dealing with mobile television without help ( control 23,46).…”

Rethinking determinants of ICT acceptance: Towards an integrated and comprehensive overview

“…The convergence with theories originating from social psychology such as Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein, 1967;Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), (Decomposed) Theory of Planned Behaviour ((D)TPB) (Ajzen, 1991;Taylor & Todd, 1995) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1986;1989) in particular led to an extremely valuable -yet fragmented -increase in research on adoption and determinant models. As a result, some scholars consider one or two extra determinants (Holak & Lehmann, 1990), while others take into account eight (Plouffe et al, 2001), ten (Choi, Choi, Kim, & Yu, 2003) or more determinants (Williams et al, 2009;Wirth, von Pape, & Karnowski, 2008). Downside of this increased attention is that researchers are confronted with a lack of overview, since the growing multidisciplinary interest entails a cluttered and inconveniently arranged entirety of determinants (Moore & Benbasat, 1991;Premkumar & Bhattacherjee, 2008).…”