Interpersonal influence and consumer innovativeness

Abstract

Innovators represent a small and somewhat elusive group of consumers who are often the earliest adopters of new products. As such, marketing researchers and practitioners alike are interested in determining the personality characteristics that influence innovators to purchase a new product early in the product life cycle. This correlational study examined the relationships of three of these characteristics (susceptibility to interpersonal influence, attention to social comparison information, and role‐relaxed consumption) to individual innate innovativeness. Data were collected using self‐report surveys administered to 326 students at a large public university in the south‐east United States. The results supported hypothesized negative relationships between consumer innovativeness and both susceptibility to interpersonal influence and attention to social comparison information, as well as a positive relationship between consumer innovativeness and role‐relaxed consumption.

Susceptibility to and impact of interpersonal influence in an investment context

“…In addition, by taking the antecedents and consequences of CSII into account, we add to the emerging but limited body of research that positions CSII in a nomological net (Batra et al 2001). Although current literature associates CSII with a variety of variables, such as self-esteem, attention to social comparison information (ATSCI), motivation to comply, public self-consciousness, and consumer innovativeness (Bearden et al 1989Bearden and Rose 1990;Clark and Goldsmith 2006;Lascu et al 1995;Steenkamp and Gielens 2003), it is uncommon that these accumulated research findings appear united in a theoretical framework. Finally, we use experimental data for the first time to show how interpersonal influences affect consumers' investment decisions.…”

“…Third, CSII has important consequences for consumer behavior. Recent studies on consumer innovativeness (Clark and Goldsmith 2006;Steenkamp and Gielens 2003), for example, show that consumers who are susceptible to the influence of others are less inclined to purchase innovative products, such as new financial services, early. Considering the size of the financial services industry, the failure of approximately 50% of all financial innovations (Edgett 1994), and the benefits of new products for financial service providers (Storey and Easingwood 1999), marketers must begin to study the role of CSII in an investment context.…”

The equivalence of Internet versus paper-based surveys in IT/IS adoption research in collectivistic cultures: the impact of satisficing

“…The second scale is Global Innovativeness (GI), which assesses an individual's general predisposition to innovativeness, or willingness to try new things, as proposed by Hurt et al (1977). This scale is frequently adopted in marketing research (Clark and Goldsmith 2006) and has IT/IS applications. Given that PIIT belongs to the domain of a specific innovativeness scale, we posit that a significant positive correlation exists between PIIT and GI.…”

The Influence of Cognitive Innovativeness on the Behavior and Style of Consumer Adoption: Implications for Electronic-Banking Service Adoption

“…In fact this innovativeness is the tendency of the consumer to engage the mind and is the degree of which he is stimulated and based on search for new product or avoids it (Goldsmith & Foxall, 2003). In previous studies, equivalent names are employed for innate innovativeness which includes: open innovativeness (Josef & Vyas, 1984), public innovativeness (Clark & Goldsmith, 2006), independent innovativeness (Steenkamp & Gielens, 2003).…”