Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2440–2447

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Satisfied and unwilling: Exploring cognitive and situational resistance

to innovations☆
Sven Heidenreich a,⁎, Tobias Kraemer b,1, Matthias Handrich c,2
a
Faculty of Law and Economics, Saarland University, Building C3 1, 66123 Saarbruecken, Saarland, Germany
b
Institute for Management, University of Koblenz–Landau, Universitätsstraße 1, 56070, Koblenz, Germany
c
Department of Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship, EBS Business School, Rheingaustraße 1, 65375 Oestrich-Winkel, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Every company is buzzing “innovation” these days, while continuously launching new products. Yet previous
Received 1 October 2014 studies point to high failure rates and suggest that most innovations get rejected due to consumers' innovation
Received in revised form 1 October 2015 resistance. Within this respect, prior research acknowledges the role of passive innovation resistance as signifi-
Accepted 1 January 2016
cant inhibitor for the adoption of new products. However, empirical evidence on whether and how different
Available online 2 February 2016
types of passive innovation resistance (i.e., cognitive and situational passive resistance) affect new product adop-
Keywords:
tion still lacks. Using a scenario-based experiment (n = 307), this study delivers first empirical evidence that
Resistance to innovation both resistance types are strong inhibitors for new product adoption. Results show that consumers with high cog-
Situational passive resistance nitive or situational passive resistance show negative effects that are similar in their magnitude, whereas con-
Cognitive passive resistance sumers with high levels of both dimensions exhibit the strongest predisposition to resist innovations. Hence,
New product adoption these consumers represent the most critical segment when launching new products.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Friedrich, 2007; Gourville, 2006) acknowledge innovation resistance.

For decades, new product adoption literature reports high failure
rates for new products, roughly 50% (Castellion & Markham, 2013). The
economic consequences of high innovation failure rates are alarming. A
study by the GfK (2006) finds that a flop rate of 70% for Fast Moving
Consumer Goods (FMCG) led to an accumulated mis-investment of
over 10 billion Euros in Germany in 2006. In 2004, U.S. companies wasted
around 90 billion Euros unsuccessfully marketing new products (Clancy,
Krieg, & Wolf, 2006). New products that fail represent mis-investments
on a large scale that cannot generate future revenues and might even
lead to a loss of reputation (Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013; Hess, 2009).
Past research also confirms that innovation failures are especially harm-
ful to high-equity brands that have preannounced the innovation (Liao
& Cheng, 2014) and might even endanger the competitiveness of com-
panies (Bayus, Erickson, & Jacobson, 2003). In this regard, past research
points to consumers' innovation resistance as a major cause of such
innovation failures (Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013; Ram, 1989).
Both scientific research (e.g., Laukkanen, Sinkkonen, & Laukkanen,
2008; Sheth, 1981) and management practice (Garcia, Bardhi, &
☆ The authors thank Fabian Futterer and Jan Millemann for their valuable comments on
earlier versions of this manuscript.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 681 302 71480.
E-mail addresses: sven.heidenreich@uni-saarland.de (S. Heidenreich),
tkraemer@uni-koblenz.de (T. Kraemer), mhandrich@gmx.de (M. Handrich).
1
Tel.: +49 261 287 2542.
2
Tel.: +49 621 456 1012.
However, scant research investigates this phenomenon's nature and
consequences (Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013; Kleijnen, Lee, & Wetzels,
2009). Research primarily focuses on motivating factors and positive
outcomes of the adoption process, while only a few studies examine
the factors inhibiting or delaying the innovation's adoption and
diffusion (Ellen, Bearden, & Sharma, 1991; Heidenreich & Spieth,
2013; Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). The extant literature dubs this
phenomenon as “pro-change” bias, describing the fact that the literature
follows the assumption that individuals principally are open to change
and thus desire to evaluate and adopt new products (e.g., Rogers,
1976; Talke & Heidenreich, 2014).
To overcome this “pro-change” bias, recent research suggests
that the concept of passive innovation resistance should receive more
attention (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). Active innovation resistance is
a conscious form of resistance that comes from functional and psycho-
logical barriers following a deliberate evaluation of a new product
(e.g., Kleijnen et al., 2009; Patsiotis, Hughes, & Webber, 2013). On the
other hand, passive innovation resistance is an unconscious form of
resistance that is driven by individuals' resistance to change disposition
and satisfaction with the status quo, evolving prior to the evaluation of a
new product (e.g., Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a; Nabih, Bloem, &
Poiesz, 1997). Prior research separates passive innovation resistance
into two related but distinct branches: (1) cognitive passive resistance
driven by an individual's inclination to resist changes and (2) situational
passive resistance driven by an individual's satisfaction with the status
quo (Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013). While researchers examine active

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.014
0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 S. Heidenreich et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2440–2447
innovation resistance empirically (Kuisma, Laukkanen, & Hiltunen, 2007;
Wiedmann, Hennigs, Pankalla, Kassubek, & Seegebarth, 2011), empirical
research on passive innovation resistance remains scarce (Heidenreich
& Kraemer, 2015b; Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). Limited empirical re-
search on passive resistance is surprising because adopting an innovation
always entails behavioral changes, which might endanger the status quo,
likely provoking passive innovation resistance (Heidenreich & Handrich,
2014; Sheth, 1981). Accordingly, passive innovation resistance serves as
an influential construct within the adoption process of consumers, but
few studies empirically examine this behavior (Heidenreich & Handrich,
2014). Previous findings indicate that passive innovation resistance ex-
erts negative effects on new product evaluation (Heidenreich & Spieth,
2013) and adoption (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2014) as well as innovative
consumer behavior (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015b). However, past em-
pirical studies do not separately assess the effect of cognitive and situa-
tional passive resistance. Hence, empirical evidence on how different
types of passive innovation resistance affect new product adoption is
still missing. Yet previous research suggests that passive resistance
types differ in the way they impact new product adoption (Heidenreich
& Kraemer, 2015b; Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). To address this gap, the
first research goal is to investigate whether and how different types of
passive innovation resistance (i.e., situational and cognitive resistance)
may affect new product adoption.
Further, recent research shows that perceived stimulation enhances
negative effects of passive innovation resistance on innovative consumer
behavior (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015b). Following assessments of an
innovation's continuous or discontinuous nature, consumers classify
innovations as congruent or incongruent with their established usage
patterns (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a; Hirschman, 1980). Radical
new products characterized by a high degree of newness and thus
high levels of stimulation are seen as incongruent with existing prod-
ucts (Veryzer, 1998). For this reason, prior research findings suggest
that a radical innovation requires significantly more behavioral changes
than an incremental innovation (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2014).
Resulting negative effects of cognitive and situational passive innova-
tion resistance might be more severe for radical versus incremental
new products (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a). However, an empirical
examination of whether and how different passive innovation resis-
tance types might interact with the degree of newness to affect new
product adoption still remains unanswered. Consequently, this study's
second research aim is to empirically examine this issue.
The first part of this manuscript develops the conceptual framework
of this research, conceptualizes the core concepts, and derives hypotheses
on their relationships. The subsequent section summarizes the research
design and statistical methods before presenting the results. The last
part discusses the findings, derives implications for theory and practice,
and outlines limitations and directions for further research.
2. Conceptual development
Prior studies confirm that the probability of market success for new
products is extremely low (Castellion & Markham, 2013). One key
reason for innovations' low success rate is that consumers often experi-
ence a certain degree of resistance preceding new product adoption
(Kuisma et al., 2007). Prior research often differentiates active from
passive innovation resistance. Active innovation resistance represents
a negative attitude formation based on innovation-specific factors
that follows the deliberate evaluation of new products (Laukkanen
et al., 2008; Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). Consumer perceptions that
innovation-specific factors do not meet expectations lead to functional
(i.e., usage, value and risk barrier) and psychological barriers
(i.e., tradition and image barrier) (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2014;
Kuisma et al., 2007; Ram, 1989). As soon as these barriers exceed the
potential adopter's specific tolerance level, a negative attitude forms
about the new product that causes active innovation resistance (Talke
& Heidenreich, 2014).
2441
Passive innovation resistance represents a predisposition to resist
innovations that is caused by an individual's inclination to resist chang-
es and satisfaction with status quo prior to new product evaluation
(Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013). Since individuals strive for psychological
equilibrium (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955) and balance (Heider, 2013),
anything new or different disturbs an individual's psychological balance
and endangers the psychological equilibrium. This state likely provokes
initial resistance to the changes necessary for new product adoption
(Szmigin & Foxall, 1998; Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). This initial resis-
tance is commonly dubbed passive innovation resistance and repre-
sents the consumer's initial response to the changes imposed by a
new product, without any consideration of the innovation's specific fac-
tors (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2014). Rather than functional and psy-
chological barriers, passive innovation resistance evolves from the
degree of discontinuity or change necessary to adopt the new product
(Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015b; Nabih et al., 1997). Both active and
passive innovation resistances emerge prior to the adoption process.
While their determinants differ, these constructs intertwine. Passive in-
novation resistance influences the mental effort devoted to new prod-
uct evaluation, prompting cognitive and emotional negative responses
about the innovation. This action fosters functional and psychological
barriers while evaluating the innovation, leading to active innovation
resistance (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014).
Early research almost exclusively focuses on active innovation
resistance. Recent research empirically examines how passive innova-
tion resistance affects new product evaluation (Heidenreich & Spieth,
2013), adoption (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2014), and different types
of innovative consumer behavior (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015b)
as well as strategies to overcome passive innovation resistance
(Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a). However, these studies neglect to
separately assess the effects of different types of passive innovation
resistance on individual's adoption behavior. Prior research suggests
that passive innovation resistance bifurcates into related but distinct
types that differ in their impact on new product adoption: (1) cognitive
passive resistance and (2) situational passive resistance (Heidenreich &
Kraemer, 2015b; Talke & Heidenreich, 2014).
Cognitive passive resistance refers to the degree to which an
individual's cognitive style hinders the consideration and adoption of
new products. An individual's inclination to resist changes primarily
drives cognitive passive resistance (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a;
Oreg, 2003). By definition, consumers who are highly inclined to resist
changes are less open to innovations. These people encounter great
difficulty breaking routines, become emotionally stressed in the face
of change, and experience cognitive difficulty changing their minds
(Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013; Nov & Ye, 2008). Any innovation appears
to impose change and likely provokes cognitive passive resistance
which inhibits the adoption of new products (Ram, 1989; Talke &
Heidenreich, 2014). Situational passive resistance suggests an
individual's preference for the current status quo hinders the consider-
ation and adoption of new products (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a).
The consumers' status quo satisfaction is upset by changes necessary
to adopt the new product. High-level status quo satisfaction suggests
that a person is satisfied with current products and services. Status
quo satisfaction encourages repetition in buying behavior and increases
the resistance to alternatives (Ellen et al., 1991). As a result, situational
passive resistance inhibits new product adoption. Both cognitive and
situational passive resistance types likely interact to affect new product
adoption (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). A consumer with high cognitive
passive resistance is less likely to positively evaluate and adopt new
products when high status quo satisfaction exists. On the other hand,
a consumer with high situational passive resistance is less likely to
positively evaluate and adopt new products when high individual
resistance to change is also present. If both resistance to change and
status quo satisfaction of an individual are high, dual passive resistance
most likely prevents the adoption of new products. However, if both
individuals' resistance to change disposition and satisfaction with the
2442 S. Heidenreich et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2440–2447
status quo are low, conditions for positive attitude formation and new
product adoption are favorable. Plausibly, consumers with cognitive, sit-
uational, and dual passive resistance exert lower adoption intentions
than consumers with low passive resistance. In case of dual passive
resistance, consumers' adoption intention will be lowest. The preceding
arguments are illustrated in Fig. 1 and inform the following hypotheses:
H1a. Adoption intention for consumers with cognitive, situational and
dual passive resistance will be lower compared to consumers with
low passive innovation resistance.
H1b. Adoption intention will be lowest in case of dual passive resistance.
The extant literature demonstrates that a product's degree of newness
influences consumers' new product evaluation in certain ways (Hess,
2009). Prior studies find that a product's degree of newness affects prod-
uct comprehension (Moreau, Lehmann, & Markman, 2001), the informa-
tion search behavior of potential adopters (Ozanne, Brucks, & Grewal,
1992), and the effort necessary to adopt an innovation (Hoeffler, 2003).
Further, individuals perceive new products as congruent or incongruent
with their established usage patterns depending on how continuous or
discontinuous they perceive the innovation (Heidenreich & Kraemer,
2015a; Hirschman, 1980). For example, radically new products are seen
as incongruent with existing products (Veryzer, 1998). Consequently,
such products potentially magnify perceived changes necessary to
adopt (Laukkanen, Sinkkonen, & Laukkanen, 2009). Prior research sug-
gests these radical new products potentially evoke high levels of passive
innovation resistance, whereas an incrementally new product elicits
lower passive resistance (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a). These findings
suggest that degree of newness and passive innovation resistance interact
negatively on new product adoption. More specifically, consumers with
situational, cognitive, and dual passive innovation resistance prefer inno-
vations with a low degree of newness (i.e., incremental new products =
INPs) over innovations with a high degree of newness (i.e., radical new
products = RNPs).
H2. Adoption intention of consumers with cognitive, situational, and
dual passive innovation resistance will be higher for INPs than for RNPs.
Consumers with low levels of passive innovation resistance seem to
seek rather than avoid stimulation (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). This
finding suggests that a product's degree of newness positively relates
to consumer stimulation and the moderating effect should be positive
in the case of low passive innovation resistance. Consequently, con-
sumers with low passive innovation resistance prefer RNPs over INPs.
H3. Adoption intention of consumers with low passive innovation
resistance will be higher for RNPs than for INPs.
Inclination to Resist Changes
Low
Low
Low Passive
Status Quo Satisfaction
Resistance
High
Situational Passive
Resistance
Fig. 1. Types of passive innovation resistance (adapted from Talke & Heidenreich, 2014).
3. Data, procedure, and stimuli
To investigate the proposed hypotheses, the current study uses
the scenario method which asks participants to imagine themselves in
hypothetical roles and constellations (Wagner, Hennig-Thurau, &
Rudolph, 2009). Scenario-based experiments provide insights into
social psychological responses to hypothetical situations across several
contexts (Kwon & Weingart, 2004; Wagner et al., 2009). Further, exper-
imental scenario studies allow difficult manipulations to operationalize
readily, providing researchers with control over otherwise unmanage-
able variables (Bitner, 1990). This study selects mobile phones as the
research context to ensure that participants are familiar with the prod-
uct category and able to imagine themselves in each scenario (Kwon &
Weingart, 2004). For this study, the participants are asked to envision
themselves inside an electronics retail store. The participants must
decide whether to buy a mobile phone containing either a traditional
lithium-ionic battery or an innovative tin-sulfuric-lithium-ionic battery
(INP)/kinetic-energy-harvester battery (RNP). Following the recom-
mendations of Dreze and Nunes (2004), participants were assigned
randomly to one of eight scenarios.
At the beginning of the experiment, the participants reviewed back-
ground information about the scenarios. Afterward, scenario-specific
manipulations were assessed in all eight experimental groups.
To provide effective and realistic experimental manipulations, this
study adapted manipulations for status quo satisfaction from prior
experimental scenario studies (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Hess,
2009; Phillips & Baumgartner, 2002). Likewise, the manipulation for
resistance to change is consistent with the domain-specific version of
Oreg's (2003) inventory to operationalize individuals' resistance to
change disposition. These dimensions are routine seeking, emotional
reaction to change, short-term focus, and cognitive rigidity (Nov & Ye,
2008). Participants assigned to the control group (low passive
innovation resistance group) were told that their past experience with
traditional lithium-ionic batteries was negative (low status quo satisfac-
tion) and they enjoy trying out new mobile phones (low resistance to
change). Scenarios for cognitive, situational, and dual passive resistance
groups were manipulated in the same way. After reading the scenarios,
participants chose between the innovation (INP or RNP) and a traditional
lithium-ionic battery. The decision was measured on an eight-point
semantic differential scale. Additionally, scenario-specific manipula-
tions and realism checks were included at the end of the survey to
ensure that the manipulations were understood (Darley & Lim, 1993).
Prior to the pretest's launch, a group of academics and innovation
experts carefully reviewed the scenario descriptions. Minor revisions
were made based on their comments. All background information and
manipulations are reported in the Appendix A.
High
Cognitive Passive
Resistance
Dual Passive
Resistance
 S. Heidenreich et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2440–2447
A pretest (n = 40) assessed the scenarios' realism and the manipu-
lations' effectiveness. Using seven-point scales (1=”absolutely false”;
7 = “absolutely true”), two questions measured the scenarios' realism
(“I could easily imagine the described situation earlier” and “I believe
that the described situation could happen in real life,” composite
reliability = 0.89) (Darley & Lim, 1993; Wagner et al., 2009). The subse-
quent analysis suggests a sufficient realism level of the experimental
scenarios (Mrealism = 6.7, SD = 0.41). Moreover, a check on the familiar-
ity with the presented products (item: “This product is totally new to
me”) was included (Hess, 2009). Results indicate that the presented
innovative mobile batteries were not known to the participants
(Mfamilarity = 6.9, SD = 0.27). Consequently, the respondents were
confronted with the corresponding innovations for the first time,
supporting the research design's internal validity. The manipulation's
effectiveness for resistance to change was assessed using one item
(“In the situation described, I should imagine that I principally
enjoy trying new mobile phones”) measured on a seven-point scale
(1 = “absolutely false”; 7 = “absolutely true”). An analysis of variance
(ANOVA) provides additional assurance for the resistance to change
manipulation's effectiveness (MRTC_high = 1.4, MRTC_low = 6.3; F(1,
38) = 92.16, p b 0.01). Likewise, the manipulation for status quo satis-
faction also was tested using one item: “In the described situation, I
should imagine that I was very satisfied with lithium-ionic batteries in
the past.” Again, the manipulation was successful (MSQS_high = 6.5,
MSQS_low = 1.1; F(1, 38) = 310.88, p b 0.01). Finally, the manipulation
for the degree of newness was evaluated by assessing the radicalness
of the stimuli of both the INP and RNP using one existing item from
Moreau et al. (2001) (“This technological product is a minor variation
of an existing product”). Results indicate a successful manipulation
(MDoN_high = 1.4, MDoN_low = 3.8; F(1, 38) = 165.88, p b 0.01). Overall,
the pretest results show that the scenario descriptions and manipula-
tions are effective and thus suitable for evaluating the hypotheses.
Using a procedure similar to Tokman, Davis, and Lemon (2007) for
online experiment data collection, 1152 candidates were chosen to
participate in the study. The candidates were selected by trained
marketing students at a major university according to age, education,
gender, and income to ensure a representative sample with respect to
the German population. Subsequently, these candidates were contacted
by e-mail and directed to the online experiment. To motivate the
candidates to participate, the online experiment also included a lottery
of online shopping vouchers to increase the response rate. Of the 1152
initially selected individuals, 307 participated in the online experiment
and returned a completed survey (26.6% net response rate). The
experimental setting was a 4 (type of passive resistance: low (control),
situational, cognitive, dual) × 2 (degree of newness: low (INP), high
(RNP)) between-subjects design. The participants were 41.4% female
with an average age of 30.2 and 58.6% are male with an average age of
29.6. About one-fifth of the respondents only have high-school di-
plomas or a secondary school certificates (21.7%). Over three-fourths
of the respondents reported “university or some other graduate degree”
(75.3%). The income was normally distributed (average income) and
23.9% of respondents had annual incomes greater than 35,000 Euros.
4. Results
4.1. Manipulation checks
To investigate the experimental design's realism, the same manipu-
lation checks used in the pretest were implemented. Again, the results
show a sufficient realism level for the employed manipulations
(Mrealism = 5.5, SD = 1.45). The main study results indicate that
participants were unfamiliar with the mobile battery alternatives
(Mfamilarity = 5.9, SD = 1.59). Additionally, an assessment of the
provided stimuli's effectiveness confirms that both the manipulation
of resistance to change (MRTC_high = 1.4, MRTC_low = 6.7; F(1, 142) =
1778.81, p b 0.01) and status quo satisfaction (MSQS_high = 6.3,
2443
MSQS_low = 1.5; F(1, 150) = 1034.39, p b 0.01) were successful. Finally,
the radicalness of the stimuli between the INP and RNP varied signifi-
cantly (MDoN_high = 2.7, MDoN_low = 3.6; F(1, 305) = 27.73, p b 0.01).
These findings confirm all manipulations successful within the main
study.
4.2. Main effects
As the study sample demonstrates a non-normal distribution
(D(307) = 0.21, p b 0.01) and heteroscedasticity (F(7, 299) = 5.42,
p b 0.01), adjusted rank transform (ART) two-way ANOVA tests were
employed for the statistical analysis. The ART-ANOVA is a more robust
and powerful alternative to ANOVA, especially in cases where both
normality and homoscedasticity are violated (Leys & Schumann, 2010;
Sawilowsky, 1990). The ART-ANOVA relies on a pre-processing step
that aligns the data for each effect (main or interaction) by subtracting
the corresponding marginal means of each response variable's effect,
removing all effects but one (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1995). Next, each
observation gets an individual rank and a factorial ANOVA is conducted
(Leys & Schumann, 2010).
The results of the subsequent analysis confirm a significant main
effect for each passive innovation resistance type on the intention to
adopt (F(3, 303) = 17.40, p b 0.01). Participants of the low passive
innovation resistance exhibit a higher intention to adopt new products
(MPIRlow = 6.8) than participants in cognitive (MPIRcognitive = 5.4),
situational (MPIRsituational = 5.4), or dual passive resistance conditions
(MPIRdual = 4.1). Results are inconclusive for the difference between
the effects of situational and cognitive passive resistance on adoption
intention (F(1, 154) = .32, p N 0.05). Yet adoption intention is
significantly lower for dual passive innovation resistance compared to
cognitive (F(1, 153) = 9.58, p b 0.01) and situational passive resistance
(F(1, 161) = 6.93, p b 0.01). Separate regression analyses were conducted
to determine the direct effect of each passive innovation resistance type
on adoption intention. Table 1 shows cognitive (β = −0.30, p b 0.01)
and situational passive resistance (β = −0.29, p b 0.01) exert negative
effects similar in their magnitude, whereas the negative effect of dual
passive resistance is significantly higher (β = −0.49, p b 0.01). These
findings provide empirical evidence to confirm H1a and H1b (Fig. 2).
Consistent with the expectations, results confirm the significance
of the interaction between degree of newness and passive innovation
resistance on adoption intention (F(7, 299) = 2.92, p b 0.05). Partici-
pants in the cognitive, situational, and dual passive innovation resis-
tance condition prefer low levels of stimuli and thus INPs (see Fig. 3).
On the other hand, participants in the low passive innovation resistance
condition prefer high levels of stimuli and thus RNPs. These findings
support H2–H3. Comparing the magnitude of the interaction effect on
adoption intention for cognitive and situational passive resistors
provides deeper insights. Regression analyses results (see Table 1)
show the interaction effect of cognitive passive resistance and degree
of newness on adoption intention (β = −0.23, p b 0.01) is far greater
than the corresponding interaction effect of situational passive
resistance and degree of newness (β = −0.15, p b 0.10).
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
Current research continues to devote considerable attention to
individuals' adoption behavior in general and factors that influence
the adoption decision in particular. However, passive innovation resis-
tance largely remains a neglected research field. More specifically, little
empirical evidence exists on whether and how different types of passive
innovation resistance (i.e., situational and cognitive resistance) may af-
fect new product adoption and interact on their effect with a product's
degree of newness. From a theoretical perspective, this study's research
goals contribute to adoption theory in two major ways: (1) examining
2444 S. Heidenreich et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2440–2447
Table 1
Results of the regression analyses.
Effect
Cognitive passive resistance → adoption intention
Situational passive resistance → adoption intention
Dual passive resistance → adoption intention
Cognitive passive resistance × degree of newness → adoption intention
Situational passive resistance × degree of newness → adoption intention
Dual passive resistance × degree of newness → adoption intention
the effects of passive innovation resistance types on adoption intention,
thereby determining which type represents the most crucial one, and
(2) shedding light on how each passive innovation resistance type in-
teracts with degree of newness to affect adoption intention. Study re-
sults produce several insights that significantly advance the current
understanding of passive innovation resistance.
First, the controlled scenario-experiment is the first to assess
causal effects on new product adoption for different types of passive
innovation resistance. The results indicate that all three resistance
types (cognitive, situational, and dual passive) substantially decrease
adoption intention, whereas dual passive resistance is the most crucial
type of passive innovation resistance. Previous studies empirically
confirm that passive innovation resistance generally inhibits favorable
attitude formation within new product evaluations (Heidenreich &
Spieth, 2013) and reduces the adoption of new products (Heidenreich
& Handrich, 2014) as well as several types of innovative consumer
behavior (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a). The present study's findings
advance theory by showing how different types of passive innovation
resistance affect new product adoption. Study results provide the first
empirical evidence that cognitive, situational, and dual passive resis-
tance significantly inhibit the adoption of new products. These findings
both confirm and extend results of earlier studies. The finding on cogni-
tive passive resistance confirms that consumers who exhibit higher
levels of resistance to change exert lower intentions to adopt (Nov &
Ye, 2008). Results on situational passive resistance follow Ellen et al.'s
(1991) conclusion that consumers who are satisfied with a traditional
manual method are less likely to adopt a superior computerized method.
The finding on dual passive resistance extends previous research by pro-
viding further empirical evidence that passive innovation resistance is
neither tied to individuals' inclination to resist changes nor satisfaction
with the status quo alone (Ram & Jung, 1991; Swilley, 2010). To the
contrary, the evidence suggests a multi-dimensional concept combines
Fig. 2. Main effect of each type of passive innovation resistance.
Results
β t-value Hypothesis
−0.30 3.71 H1a and H1b supported
−0.29 3.75 H1a and H1b supported
−0.49 6.88 H1a and H1b supported
−0.23 2.94 H2 supported
−0.15 1.88 H2 supported
−0.15 2.11 H2 supported
the previously introduced explanations. However, the results further
indicate that negative effects on new product adoption vary by the
type of passive innovation resistance present. While negative effects
on adoption intention of cognitive and situational resistance appear to
be similar in their magnitude, dual passive resistance exerts a signifi-
cantly higher negative effect. Consequently, the type of passive innova-
tion resistance (in addition to the magnitude) seems important to
consider when investigating the nature and consequences of this
phenomenon.
Second, study results confirm the proposed interaction effect of
degree of newness and each passive innovation resistance type on
new product adoption. This finding provides additional support for
propositions that adopter-specific factors moderate the degree of
newness's effect on new product adoption (van Trijp & van Kleef,
2008; Zhou & Nakamoto, 2007) and that perceived stimulation repre-
sents a reinforcer for negative effects of passive innovation resistance
(Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015b). According to the results, consumers
characterized by low passive innovation resistance prefer new products
with a high degree of newness; however, consumers characterized by
cognitive, situational, or dual passive innovation resistance prefer new
products with a low degree of newness. Consequently, consumers
with low passive innovation resistance levels are open to change and
seek stimulation. Consumers with cognitive, situational, or dual passive
innovation resistance are reluctant to change—avoiding stimulation. A
separate regression analyses to estimate the interaction effects of
degree of newness and cognitive as well as situational passive resistance
on adoption intention indicates that the interaction effect is stronger for
cognitive passive resistors compared to situational passive resistors.
Hence, cognitive passive resistors respond more sensitively to increases
in newness, and consequently they have greater difficulties with behav-
ioral changes necessary to use a new product. Contrasting situational
Fig. 3. Interaction of passive innovation resistance and degree of newness.
 S. Heidenreich et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2440–2447
passive resistors, the act of learning and using a new product seems
psychologically more difficult for cognitive passive resistors since
these consumers are less able to adjust to new situations (Heidenreich
& Spieth, 2013; Nov & Ye, 2008; Oreg, 2003). Therefore, possible nega-
tive effects of a new product adoption due to behavioral changes seem
to be more severe for cognitive than for situational passive resistors.
Hence, future research that investigates RNPs rather than INPs should
pay special attention to consumers who are likely to resist changes
(i.e., cognitive passive resistors).
5.2. Managerial implications
From a managerial perspective, understanding how different types
of passive innovation resistance affect the adoption of innovations
helps companies to design and develop new products to increase
market success. Following previous studies on the detrimental effects
of passive innovation resistance (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2014;
Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015b; Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013), the pres-
ent study's findings indicate that innovation managers and marketers
need to be aware of consumers' predisposition to resist innovations.
Companies should take into account that consumers with high cognitive
passive resistance often act irrationally when confronted with innova-
tions. They underestimate the additional benefits offered by a new
product due to the changes entailed to the adoption of the new product.
At the same time, consumers with high situational passive resistance
overrate products they already possess. If the target market for an inno-
vation consists of either cognitive or situational resistors, the probability
for new product adoption and thus successful market introduction
might decrease significantly. Hence, companies should carefully assess
their target market's passive innovation resistance type before
launching the product. Heidenreich and Handrich's (2014) validated
measurement inventory provides companies with a tool to identify
and assess passive innovation resistance.
When the target market exhibits high shares of cognitive passive
resistors, companies might employ marketing instruments that reduce
perceived changes entailed to the adoption of their new product. For
example, previous research by Heidenreich and Kraemer (2015a)
suggests that verbal analogy (Feiereisen, Wong, & Broderick, 2008),
self-visualization (Dahl & Hoeffler, 2004), and mental simulation
(Hoeffler, 2003) embedded within advertisements might help decrease
perceived changes and conflicts entailed to new products. Furthermore,
companies might use product demonstrations to help consumers
familiarize themselves with the innovation's characteristics (Heiman,
McWilliams, & Zilberman, 2001), such that the learning curve to
use the new product does not appear too steep. These measures will
help mitigate perceived detrimental effects when the target market
comprises of a high percentage of cognitive passive resistors. If the
new product is launched in a market with a high proportion of situa-
tional resistors, companies should employ marketing instruments that
reduce consumers' status quo satisfaction with products they currently
use. Using benefit comparison (Ziamou & Ratneshwar, 2003) to increase
the new product's attractiveness is one strategy to overcome situational
passive resistance (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a). A target market
dominated by dual passive resistors is the worst-case scenario. The
probability for successful market introduction is likely to be very low.
In this case, companies should screen for other target markets to identi-
fy substantially lower shares of dual passive resistors who might be suit-
able for the innovation.
6. Limitations and future research avenues
While the study findings produced several initial insights into
the psychological and behavioral consequences of different passive
innovation resistance types on individuals' adoption behavior, several
limitations must be taken into account when generalizing the presented
results.
2445
First, the study results are derived from the consumer electronic
product category. While consumer electronics are considered as an
adequate research object to examine individuals' adoption behavior
(e.g., Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015a; Im, Bayus, & Mason, 2003), this
category restricts the generalizability to other contexts. For example,
products in high involvement product categories require high initial in-
vestments (e.g., cars or boats), fostering consumers' attachment to
existent product usage. Consumers contemplating high involvement
purchases might be more prone to detrimental effects of situational
passive resistance. Further studies might improve the generalizability
of this study's results by examining whether or not the reported results
vary by product category.
Second, the degree of newness is operationalized as categorical
variable, consisting of just two manifestations, namely low and high.
This operationalization enables the assessment of linear effects, but
the approach prevents non-linear relationship assessment. Previous
research findings suggest that some relationships might be non-linear
(van Trijp & van Kleef, 2008). Future research might directly measure
consumers' perceived degree of newness as a continuous latent
variable. Those findings could contribute to the current understanding
of possible non-linear moderating effects regarding the product new-
ness effect on the linkage between passive innovation resistance and
new product adoption.
Third, the adoption decisions as well as all consumer responses to
the scenarios partially depend on the scenarios' realism and the manip-
ulations' effectiveness. For the present study, the scenarios' simplicity
and realism as well as the manipulations were tested using pre-
and post-tests to reduce this concern. Additionally, all manipulations
followed proven methods prior studies employ. Nonetheless, a useful
next step would be validating the results by collecting actual purchase
data in a field study or further exploring the findings using longitudinal
data.
The study limitations also identify several opportunities for future
research directions. Future research could investigate whether or not
individual differences moderate the linkage of different types of passive
innovation resistance and new product adoption. For example, is the
effect of cognitive, situational, and dual passive resistance greater for
consumers who recently struggled to use a new product compared to
consumers who have not had a bad experience? Similarly, recent
successful trials possibly reduce this effect. Hence, the moderating role
of consumers' previous experiences could be worthwhile studying.
Moreover, literature highlights that consumers with high involvement
levels are more skeptical about new products than low involvement
consumers (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Therefore, consumers'
involvement also might strengthen the influence of different passive
innovation resistance types on individuals' adoption behavior.
Appendix A. Background information and manipulations
A.1. Background information: INP
Please imagine the following situation:
For your birthday, you received a gift certificate for a new mobile
phone, which you would like to redeem in the respective shop. In the
shop, you quickly find a phone that suits your requirements in terms
of design and functions. You are very sure about buying this phone.
As the sales assistant boxes your phone and its accessories (cable,
memory card, etc.), he mentions that you can have this phone either
with a lithium-ion battery or with a new tin-sulfur lithium-ion battery.
The sales assistant explains to you that the tin-sulfur lithium-ion battery
has a higher energy density and is thus able to store more power. The
specific capacity of the battery is 11.100 mAh, which is approximately
five times that of a standard battery. Therefore, the advantage of the
tin-sulfur lithium-ion battery is that the estimated usage time is five
times that of the standard lithium-ion battery.
2446 S. Heidenreich et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2440–2447
A.2. Background information: RNP
Please imagine the following situation:
For your birthday, you received a gift certificate for a new mobile
phone, which you would like to redeem in the respective shop. In the
shop you quickly find a phone that suits your requirements in terms
of design and functions. You are very sure about buying this phone.
As the sales assistant boxes your phone and its accessories (cable,
memory card, etc.), he mentions that you can have this phone either
with a lithium-ion battery or with a new kinetic-energy-harvester
battery. The sales assistant explains to you that the kinetic-energy-
harvester battery is a very powerful battery which recharges itself by
using kinetic energy. The battery itself is attached to rails with piezo-
electric elements. The kinetic energy is transformed into electric energy,
which is used to recharge the battery using body movements. Therefore,
the advantage of the kinetic-energy-harvester battery compared to the
standard lithium-ion battery is that it is able to recharge itself.
A.3. Manipulation of status quo satisfaction
A.3.1. SQS: Low
You have had rather negative past experiences with lithium-ion
batteries in electronic devices such as mobile phones, cameras, or MP3
players. You remember that your battery got broken once and its
replacement had been very expensive. Furthermore, the lithium-ion
battery did not last long, which meant that you had to recharge it
every day. The charge cycles were also rather long as the recharging
took several hours.
A.3.2. SQS: High
You have had rather positive past experiences with lithium-ion
batteries in electronic devices such as mobile phones, cameras, or MP3
players. You remember that your battery did always work well and
did not require any repairs. Furthermore, the lithium-ion battery did
last very long, which meant that you had to recharge it only once a
week. The charge cycles were also rather short as the recharging only
took about one hour.
A.4. Manipulation of resistance to change
A.4.1. RTC: Low
In addition, you are excited to try out new mobile phones. You
generally prefer to use new mobile phones with which you are not
familiar over sticking with the ones you are used to. You never feel
uncomfortable to try out new mobile phones. It is very likely that you
switch to a new mobile phone once you have explored the old one.
A.4.2. RTC: High
In addition, you are not excited to try out new mobile phones. You
generally prefer to use mobile phones with which you are familiar
over starting to use new ones. You often feel a bit uncomfortable to
try out new mobile phones, even though it may be beneficial to you.
Once you have started using a mobile phone, you are not likely to
switch.
References
Bayus, B. L., Erickson, G., & Jacobson, R. (2003). The financial rewards of new product
introductions in the personal computer industry. Management Science, 49(2), 197–210.
Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings
and employee responses. The Journal of Marketing, 69–82.
Castellion, G., & Markham, S. K. (2013). Perspective: New product failure rates: Influence
of argumentum ad populum and self-interest. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30(5), 976–979.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of
customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 491–504.
Clancy, K. J., Krieg, P. C., & Wolf, M. M. (2006). Market new products successfully: Using
simulated test market technology. Lexington books.
Dahl, D. W., & Hoeffler, S. (2004). Visualizing the self: Exploring the potential benefits and
drawbacks for new product evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
21(4), 259–267.
Darley, W. K., & Lim, J. -S. (1993). Assessing demand artifacts in consumer research: An
alternative perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 489–495.
Dreze, X., & Nunes, J. C. (2004). Using combined-currency prices to lower consumers'
perceived cost. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1), 59–72.
Ellen, P. S., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (1991). Resistance to technological innovations:
An examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 297–307.
Feiereisen, S., Wong, V., & Broderick, A. J. (2008). Analogies and mental simulations in
learning for really new products: The role of visual attention. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 25(6), 593–607.
Garcia, R., Bardhi, F., & Friedrich, C. (2007). Overcoming consumer resistance to innovation.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 82.
GfK (2006). 70 Prozent Innovationsflops – Das vermeidbare Fehlinvestment von 10
Milliarden Euro im Jahr. Retrieved 15.10.2015, from http://presse.serviceplan.de/
uploads/tx_sppresse/301.pdf
Gourville, J. T. (2006). Eager sellers. Stony buyers. Harvard Business Review, 99–106.
Heidenreich, S., & Handrich, M. (2014). What about passive innovation resistance?
Investigating adoption-related behavior from a resistance perspective. Journal of
Product Innovation Management.
Heidenreich, S., & Kraemer, T. (2015a). Innovations—Doomed to fail? Investigating
strategies to overcome passive innovation resistance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12273 (n/a-n/a).
Heidenreich, S., & Kraemer, T. (2015b). Passive innovation resistance: The curse of
innovation? Investigating consequences for innovative consumer behavior. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 51, 134–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.09.003.
Heidenreich, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Why innovations fail—The case of passive and active
innovation resistance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(05),
1350021.
Heider, F. (2013). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press.
Heiman, A., McWilliams, B., & Zilberman, D. (2001). Demonstrations and money-back
guarantees: Market mechanisms to reduce uncertainty. Journal of Business Research,
54(1), 71–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00181-8.
Hess, S. (2009). Managing consumer's adoption barriers. (Doctoral thesis) Mannheim:
University of Mannheim.
Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal
of Consumer Research, 283–295.
Hoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing
Research, 40(4), 406–420.
Im, S., Bayus, B. L., & Mason, C. H. (2003). An empirical study of innate consumer innova-
tiveness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 61–73.
Kleijnen, M., Lee, N., & Wetzels, M. (2009). An exploration of consumer resistance to
innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 344–357.
Kuisma, T., Laukkanen, T., & Hiltunen, M. (2007). Mapping the reasons for resistance to
internet banking: A means-end approach. International Journal of Information
Management, 27(2), 75–85.
Kwon, S., & Weingart, L. R. (2004). Unilateral concessions from the other party:
Concession behavior, attributions, and negotiation judgments. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(2), 263.
Laukkanen, P., Sinkkonen, S., & Laukkanen, T. (2008). Consumer resistance to internet
banking: Postponers, opponents and rejectors. The International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 26(6), 440–455.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., & Laukkanen, P. (2009). Communication strategies to over-
come functional and psychological resistance to Internet banking. International
Journal of Information Management, 29(2), 111–118.
Leys, C., & Schumann, S. (2010). A nonparametric method to analyze interactions: The
adjusted rank transform test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4),
684–688.
Liao, S., & Cheng, C. C. (2014). Brand equity and the exacerbating factors of product
innovation failure evaluations: A communication effect perspective. Journal of
Business Research, 67(1), 2919–2925.
Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Entrenched knowledge
structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(1), 14–29.
Nabih, M. I., Bloem, J. G., & Poiesz, T. B. (1997). Conceptual issues in the study of
innovation adoption behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, XXIV(24), 190–196.
Nov, O., & Ye, C. (2008). Users' personality and perceived ease of use of digital libraries:
The case for resistance to change. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 59(5), 845–851.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680.
Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of
attitude change. Psychological Review, 62(1), 42.
Ozanne, J. L., Brucks, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). A study of information search behavior
during the categorization of new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 452–463.
Patsiotis, A. G., Hughes, T., & Webber, D. J. (2013). An examination of consumers'
resistance to computer-based technologies. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(4),
294–311.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 135–146.
Phillips, D. M., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). The role of consumption emotions in the
satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 243–252.
 S. Heidenreich et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 2440–2447
Ram, S. (1989). Successful innovation using strategies to reduce consumer resistance an
empirical test. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6(1), 20–34.
Ram, S., & Jung, H. -S. (1991). “Forced” adoption of innovations in organizations: Conse-
quences and implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(2), 117–126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.820117.
Rogers, E. M. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research,
290–301.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). “Some things you learn aren't so”: Cohen's paradox,
Asch's paradigm, and the interpretation of interaction. Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–9.
Sawilowsky, S. S. (1990). Nonparametric tests of interaction in experimental design.
Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 91–126.
Sheth, J. N. (1981). Psychology of innovation resistance: The less developed concept.
Research in Marketing, 4(3), 273–283.
Swilley, E. (2010). Technology rejection: The case of the wallet phone. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 27(4), 304–312.
Szmigin, I., & Foxall, G. (1998). Three forms of innovation resistance: The case of retail pay-
ment methods. Technovation, 18(6–7), 459–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-
4972(98)00030-3.
Talke, K., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). How to overcome pro-change bias: Incorporating pas-
sive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 31(5), 894–907.
2447
Tokman, M., Davis, L. M., & Lemon, K. N. (2007). The WOW factor: Creating value
through win-back offers to reacquire lost customers. Journal of Retailing, 83(1),
47–64.
van Trijp, H. C., & van Kleef, E. (2008). Newness, value and new product performance.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 562–573.
Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new
products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 136–150.
Wagner, T., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Rudolph, T. (2009). Does customer demotion
jeopardize loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 69–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1509/jmkg.73.3.69.
Wiedmann, K. -P., Hennigs, N., Pankalla, L., Kassubek, M., & Seegebarth, B. (2011). Adoption
barriers and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive sector. Journal
of Business Research, 64(11), 1201–1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2011.06.023.
Zhou, K., & Nakamoto, K. (2007). How do enhanced and unique features affect new
product preference? The moderating role of product familiarity. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 53–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
006-0011-3.
Ziamou, P., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Innovations in product functionality: When and why
are explicit comparisons effective? Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 49–61. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/30040522.