258 International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.

258-266 (2011)

ROLE OF INNOVATIVENESS OF CONSUMER IN

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED ATTRIBUTES OF
NEW PRODUCTS AND INTENTION TO ADOPT
Cheng-Hsun Ho1* and Wenchieh Wu2
1
Graduate Institute of Information Management
National Taipei University
New Taipei City (23741), Taiwan
2
Dept. of Business Administration
St. John’s University
New Taipei City (25135), Taiwan

ABSTRACT
According to the literature, the two key factors that govern consumers’ adoption of innovative
products are perceived product attributes and consumer traits. An IT product, iPad, is
considered in a case study of how consumer innovativeness and new product attributes affect
consumers’ intentions to adopt. The investigation also discusses the effect of consumer
innovativeness on the relationship between new product attributes and adoption intentions.
Consumer innovativeness and perceived new product attributes are found to influence the
adoption of new products, and consumer innovativeness is found moderately to affect the
relationships between perceived new production attributes and consumers’ adoption intentions.

Keywords: Consumer Innovativeness, New Product Attributes, Consumer Adoption Intention

1. INTRODUCTION of new products. This investigation will also study

* whether consumer innovativeness moderates the
The digital environment is evolving rapidly. With
the development and application of new technologies,
new products have shorter life cycles. Therefore, to
maintain and even increase market share, businesses
must make a greater effort to improve their
competitiveness and develop new products that satisfy
the demands of the market. According to Schmidt and
Calantone [19], almost OR 50% of a firm’s sales and
profits come from products that have been developed
within the previous five years, and some companies
stake their corporate survival on key new products.
Accordingly, the success of new products is critical to
businesses. However, the development of new
products entails several risks. Hoffmann and Soyez [6]
note that innovations fail at a high rate, which can
reach 80% in some companies. Research,
development, and marketing an new products all
required considerable time and money. Failure of a
new product results in a huge sunk cost. Hence,
businesses must gain customer recognition of their
new products as soon as they are introduced to
maximize their profits within the short life cycles of
those products.
This investigation applies new product adoption
theory to study the relationship between consumer
innovativeness and their perceptions of the attributes
*
Corresponding author: jeffher@mail.ntpu.edu.tw
relationship between perceived attributes of new
products and consumers’ intentions to adopt new
products. The results of this paper can serve as a
reference for setting new product marketing strategies.
Briefly, this investigation seeks aims to (1) model and
explore the relationships among consumer
innovativeness, perceived attributes of new products,
and consumers’ intentions to adopt new products, and
(2) determine whether consumer innovativeness
influences consumers’ intentions to adopt in a manner
that depends on the perceived attributes of new
products.
2. LITERATUREREVIEW
2.1 Consumer Innovativeness
Consumer innovativeness has its root in
Diffusion of Innovations Theory. Rogers and
Shoemaker [16] defines consumer innovativeness as
“the degree to which an individual is earlier in
adopting new ideas than the average member of his or
her social system”. Basically, consumers with a high
level of innovativeness are characterized by (1) a
willingness to make changes in concepts and things;
(2) an ability to influence others to adopt the
innovative concepts and things; (3) being helpful in
solving problems and making decisions in an
organization or social system, and (4) the rate and
C. H. Ho and H. Y. Tsai: Role of Innovativeness of Consumer in Relationship
time of adoption of the aforementioned changes in a
functional relationship. Previous research on
innovations has revealed that innovative consumers
usually provide other consumers information and
suggestions regarding new products and their opinions
are typically accepted by, and influence, other
consumers.
Midgley and Dowling [14] regard the definition
made by Rogers and Shoemaker [16] as only an
operationalized definition. Steenkamp et al. [20] claim
that consumer innovativeness is the predisposition to
buy new and different products and brands rather than
to remain with previous choices and consumption
patterns.
As mentioned earlier, the failure rate of diffusing
new products is relatively high, and the cost of failure
is considerable to the organization. To minimize the
risk of diffusion failure, marketers must address the
needs of innovative consumers - the most important
target group in the diffusion process. The use of new
products by these consumers in public motivates other
consumers to seek and buy the same products [6].
Therefore, these consumers, also called consumer
innovators, are crucial to the success of the diffusion
of new products. Previous research on the adoption of
innovation has two main focuses. One is the effects of
demographic variables on the adoption of new
products. Researchers with this focus have
empirically verified that consumer innovators are
demographically different from other consumers. The
other focus is the use of innate consumer
innovativeness to identify consumer innovators.
Innate consumer innovativeness is not concerned with
a particular product. Rather, it is an individual’s
generalized unobservable predisposition toward
innovations and is applicable across product classes
[10]. Therefore, this investigation argues that by
identifying consumers with high levels of
innovativeness, businesses can more accurately
predict the acceptability of their new products and
also save time and cost in marketing.
Individual predisposition is important to a
consumer’s adoption of innovations. This argument
has been mentioned in studies of brand loyalty,
decision, preference, and communication [5].
Consumer innovativeness is commonly utilized in
psychological studies to verify an individual’s
innovativeness [10]. It reflects an innovative
personality, predisposition, and cognitive style [11].
2.2 Adoption of New Products
Kolter [12] stated that new products include
original products, product improvements, product
modifications, and new brands that a business
develops through its own research and development
efforts. New products can also be “products that are to
be introduced into the market or are perceived by
consumers as newer than existing products” [1]. A
259
review of related literature reveals that businesses and
consumers have completely different perceptions of
new products, and that the definition of new products
varies among disciplines. A product that is new to
consumers may not be new to businesses, and vice
versa.
To consumers, any product that they have never
seen is a new product. According to Guiltinan [4],
new products can be classified into three groups,
based on the demand outcomes that are sought by
consumers. They are (1) trial and repurchase, (2)
customer migration, and (3) innovation adoption and
diffusion. The market-oriented view measures the
degree to which a new product is accessible to
consumers. Schiffman and Kanuk [18] proposed two
market-oriented definitions of new products. One is
based on market penetration: a product whose
potential consumers represent a certain ratio of all
consumers in the market can be regarded as a new
product. The other is based on the release time of the
product: a product that remains effective for
consumers for a short period can be regarded as a new
product. (Based on the above definition, iPad is
regarded as a new product herein.
In the new product adoption model that was
developed by Holak [8], perceived product attributes,
consumer traits, and environmental variables all affect
intention to purchase, in turn affecting actual purchase
and adoption. Holak [8] argues that consumers must
take into account product attributes and their own
traits in evaluating a new product, because innovative
characteristics and the acceptability of an innovation
all relate to the product attributes, and continuous
adoption of an innovation is largely related to
consumer traits.
Based on Holak’s [8] framework, this
investigation examines two factors that affect
consumers’ adoption of new products - consumer
traits and product attributes. Among the various
consumer traits, this study focuses on consumer
innovativeness, and investigates its effects on
intention to adopt, and considers whether this trait can
reinforce the effect of the perceived attributes of a
new product on consumers’ intentions to adopt.
2.3 Perceived Attributes of New Products
The fundamental characteristic of innovation is a
set of unique product attributes that can result in
consumer adoption. Some products are rapidly
diffused and widely adopted by consumers as soon as
they hit the market, but some are not. Product
attributes affect this phenomenon. This investigation
will explore product attributes that affect consumers’
purchases and intentions to adoption and identify key
attributes of the iPad. According to Rogers [17], all
innovations should not be considered to be equally
important. Innovative characteristics, especially those
perceived by adopters, can increase the acceptability
260 International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)
of a new product. Rogers thus proposed five
perceived attributes of new product - relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, trial ability, and
observability.
Relative advantage is the degree to which an
innovation is perceived to be better than the product
that it is replacing. It does not refer to the objective
advantage of a new product but to the adopter’s
subjective perception of advantage. Relative
advantage can be measured in terms of economic
factors, such as social status, convenience, economic
gains, and low cost. An innovation that offers a
greater advantage is believed to have greater
acceptability, higher diffusion speed. Past research
into perceived attributes of innovations has suggested
that relative advantage is positively related to
acceptability, and so is one of the most effective
factors for predicting acceptability.
Compatibility is the degree to which an
innovation is perceived to be compatible with the
consumer’s existing value system, experience, and
needs. Consumers are more likely to adopt a new
product earlier if the product is more compatible with
their existing values and needs, and they do not need
to change anything to use the product. For potential
adopters, higher product compatibility also means less
uncertainty and a smaller gap between product
attributes and consumer needs. An innovation’s
compatibility is positively related to its acceptability.
Complexity is the degree to which an
innovation appears difficult to understand and use,
and is a subjective perception. Some new products are
easy to understand for most people in society, but
others appear very complex and take longer to diffuse.
A less complex innovation can be diffused more
rapidly. An innovation that requires adopters to learn
new skills or increase their comprehension is not
likely to be rapidly accepted. Therefore, adoption of
the innovation may be delayed.
Trialability is the degree to which an innovation
can be experimented with on a limited basis.
Innovations that can be examined and tried in
different stages are typically more rapidly adopted
than those that cannot. In marketing, trialability
means availability for free trial and provides
experience of the product. The iPad is available for
trial and experience at Apple Stores. Hence,
trialability is one of the variables that are studied in
this investigation.
Observability is the degree to which results of
innovating are visible to others. More visible results
of innovating correspond to greater acceptability.
Observability of innovations can raise questions and
induce discussion about the innovations among peers,
including adopters’ friends and colleagues. Easier
recognition or verbalization of the benefits or
functions of a new product correspond to faster
diffusion of the information. Users’ gathering for
discussion about a certain innovation also reflects the
importance of the observability of innovations. Some
innovative consumption goods, such as early personal
computers, suffered from slow diffusion partly
because of low observability.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Framework
Holak [8] stated that consumers take into account
both product attributes and their own traits in the
evaluation of a new product, and argued that purchase
intentions are largely governed by “perceived product
attributes” and “consumer traits”. Product attributes
are one of the two key factors that affect consumers’
adoption of new products [8]. Basically, the
acceptability of innovations can be explained using
the five perceived attributes of innovations that were
proposed by Rogers [17].
Based primarily on Holak's [8] research, this
study examines the two factors that affect consumers’
intention to adopt new products. These two factors are
consumer traits and product attributes. In addition to
demographic variables, consumer innovativeness is
considered, and its influence on consumers’ intentions
to adopt new products is studied. Further, this
investigation studies whether consumer
innovativeness moderates the relationship between
perceived attributes of new products and intention to
adopt. Figure 1 presents the research framework.
H1
Consumer
innovativeness
H3
Perceived H2 Adoption
attributes of new Intention for
products new products
Figure 1: Research framework
3.2 Hypotheses
Manning et al. [13] noted that highly innovative
consumers tend to make decisions to adopt
innovations independently, have a high interest in
novelty, and have a strong desire to seek out new
product information. According to Hoffmann and
Soyez [6], innovative consumers use special media to
seek information and commonly focus on specific
product categories. They aspire to understand the
technical information concerning new products. They
are also more likely to become opinion leaders and
early adopters of new products because they wish to
be the person from whom their peers seek information
about new products to maintain their social role.
Accordingly, this paper proposes the following
hypothesis.
C. H. Ho and H. Y. Tsai: Role of Innovativeness of Consumer in Relationship
H1: Consumer innovativeness positively affects the
intention to adopt new products.
Holak and Lehmann [7] noted that the degree to
which a new product is perceived to be superior to its
predecessors can be a measure of product benefits.
Additionally, reward, price, and quality of innovations
are all important factors that consumers consider in
the adoption of innovations. Taylor and Todd [21]
studied the effects of innovative characteristics on
consumers’ adoption of innovation. Their findings
suggest that consumers are more likely to adopt a new
product that has a greater perceived relative advantage
than its predecessors. Therefore, this paper proposes
the following hypothesis.
H2a: The relative advantage of a new product
positively affects consumers’ intentions to adopt
that new product.
The various causes of substantial delays in
consumers’ adoption of new products indicate imply
that social risks and financial risks may all
substantially delay consumers’ decisions to adopt the
adoption of innovations [3]. Holak [7] found that
research into innovativeness and purchase intention
revealed that new products are better accepted by
consumers if they are compatible with those
consumers’ habits of use of similar products, their
cultural background and values. Based on the above
discussion, the hypothesis is made.
H2b: The compatibility of a new product positively
affects consumers’ intentions to adopt that
product.
Rogers [17] stated that complexity is the degree
to which an innovation is difficult to understand and
use. Some new products can be easily understood by
most people in society, whereas others cannot. A more
easily understood new product can be diffused more
rapidly. If an innovation requires adopters to learn
new skills or increase their comprehension, its
diffusion may take longer and its adoption may be
delayed. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
inferred.
H2c: The complexity of a new product negatively
affects consumers’ intentions to adopt it.
Trialability is the degree to which an innovation
can be experimented with on a limited basis [17].
Innovations that can be experimented with and tried in
stages can generally be more rapidly accepted by
consumers than those that cannot. The trialability of
innovations can reduce the uncertainty in
decision-making by potential adopters, because they
261
can learn about the product by physically using it.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H2d: The trialability of a new product positively
affects consumers’ intentions to adopt it.
According to Rogers [17], observability is the
degree to which the results of innovation are visible to
others. Greater visibility is associated with greater
acceptability. The observability of innovations can
raise questions and induce discussion about the
innovations among peers, including adopters’ friends
and colleagues. Easier recognition and verbalization
of the benefits or functions of a new product
corresponds to faster diffusion of that information.
Users’ discussions about) an innovation manifests the
importance of the observability of innovations.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is made.
H2e: The observability of a new product positively
affects consumers’ intentions to adopt it.
Robertson [15] mentioned that most adopters of
innovations have a risk-seeking personality trait.
According to Boone [2], innovation adopters are
highly receptive to new things and enjoy seeking and
leading change. The findings of Venkatraman and
Price [22] demonstrate that cognitive innovators tend
to have a greater demand for cognitive stimulation,
enjoy text messages more, buy more impulsively,
make decisions more quickly, and try new products
before most people. Therefore, this study proposes the
following hypotheses.
H3a: Consumer innovativeness moderates the
relationship between relative advantage and
adoption intention for new products.
H3b: Consumer innovativeness moderates the
relationship between compatibility and adoption
intention for new products.
H3c: Consumer innovativeness moderates the
relationship between complexity and adoption
intention for new products.
H3d: Consumer innovativeness moderates the
relationship between trialability and adoption
intention for new products.
H3e: Consumer innovativeness moderates the
relationship between observability and adoption
intention for new products.
3.3 Variable Definition and Measurement
Based on the scales for (measuring OR the
measurement of) innovativeness that were introduced
by Hurt et al. [9], this study used 20 items to measure
the adoption of innovations. The Cronbach’s α for the
items was 0.92. Relative advantage measures the
performance of a new product relative to that of
similar products on the market. According to a survey
262 International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)

that was performed by DIGITIMES Research in 2011,
price is the first factor that consumers consider in the
purchase of a Tablet PC, followed by battery life,
panel size, weight, and availability of applications.
Based on these factors, seven items were specified.
Compatibility is the degree to which an
innovation is perceived to be compatible with the
consumer’s existing value system, experience, and
needs. Three designated items were related to this
variable, and they had a Cronbach’s α of 0.79.
Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is
difficult to understand and use. It was associated with
four items, whose reliability coefficient was 0.85.
Trialability is the degree to which an innovation can
be experimented with on a limited basis. This variable
was measured in terms of four items. Observability is
the degree to which the results of an innovation are
visible to others. This variable was also measured in
terms of four items. Adoption intention refers to
consumers’ intention to adopt new products. Four
items, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.87, were used to
measure this variable. All of the items were measured
on a five-point Likert scale.
4. RESULTS
A total of 288 questionnaire responses were
returned. Thirty-three responses were invalid (from
consumers who already owned an iPad or who gave
incomplete answers), and so 255 valid responses were
obtained. The valid sample comprised 45.9% male
and 54.4% female respondents, mainly in the age
groups of 19~25 (63.1%) and 26~35 (26.7%). Most of
the respondents had a college (41.1%) or graduate
(56.9%) education and listed student (48.6%) as their
current occupation.
Consumer innovativeness involves three
constructs - adoption of new methods, tendency to try
new products, and creativity. The reliability analysis
suggested that the Cronbach’s α for the three
constructs were 0.780, 0.785, and 0.753 respectively.
The scale for measuring consumer innovativeness that
was developed by Wortzel [23] was highly reliable.
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and
correlations of the variable.
Excluding responses that indicated a bias against
Apple products, this study treated respondents’
experience of using Apple products and their product
preferences as two control variables. Multiple
regression analysis was conducted on the use of
hierarchical, and Table 2 presents the results of the
statistical analysis. The following analyses were
carried out; multiple regressions with intention to
adopt new products as the dependent variable, and
two control variables, three groups of consumer
innovativeness and five perceptions as independent
variables; a multiplicative term consumer
innovativeness and each of the five perceptions was
adopted. The models were introduced into the
regression equation after the rest of the independent
variables. The change in R2 was significant at p<.05.
A significant coefficient of the multiplicative term
was interpreted as suggesting interaction effects. The
results indicate that H1, H2c, H3a, H3b, H3c and H3d
were supported.

Table 1: Correlation matrix and summary of variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Adoption of new 1
methods
2. New product trial 0.26＊＊ 1
3. Creativity 0.47＊＊ 0.26＊＊ 1
4. Relative 0.24＊＊ 0.05 0.03 1
advantage
5. Compatibility 0.12＊＊ -0.15＊ 0.07 0.51＊＊ 1
6. Complexity -0.20＊＊ -0.23＊＊ -0.28＊＊ -0.29＊＊ -0.32＊＊ 1
7. Trialability 0.24＊＊ 0.01 0.11 0.38＊＊ 0.23＊＊ -0.36＊＊ 1
8. Observability 0.16＊ 0.09 0.15＊ 0.22＊＊ 0.10 -0.19＊＊ 0.56＊＊ 1
9. Adoption 0.33＊＊ 0.11 0.13＊ 0.42＊＊ 0.37＊＊ -0.42＊＊ 0.37＊＊ 0.28＊＊ 1
intention
MEAN 3.34 2.83 3.34 3.85 3.32 2.16 3.94 3.97 3.56
STDDEV 0.63 0.78 0.72 0.67 0.69 0.64 0.57 0.63 0.71
*: p value < .05; **: p value < .01.

Table 2: Results of regression analysis

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Experiences with the use of 0.14 -0.047 -0.063 -0.080
products
Product preference 0.468*** 0.441*** 0.290*** 0.309***
C. H. Ho and H. Y. Tsai: Role of Innovativeness of Consumer in Relationship 263

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

(1) Adoption of new methods 0.286*** 0.239*** 0.248***
(2) New product trial 0.004 -0.008 -0.013
(3) Creativity -0.024 -0.087 -0.075
(4) Relative advantage 0.071 0.005
(5) Compatibility 0.094 0.052
(6) Complexity -0.256*** -0.217**
(7) Trialability 0.030 0.071
(8) Observability 0.113 0.097
(1) x (4) -0.206**
(1) x (5) 0.077
(1) x (6) 0.022
(1) x (7) 0.166*
(1) x (8) -0.034
(2) x (4) 0.232***
(2) x (5) -0.017
(2) x (6) 0.231**
(2) x (7) -0.135
(2) x (8) 0.066
(3) x (4) -0.001
(3) x (5) -0.150*
(3) x (6) -0.128
(3) x (7) -0.147
(3) x (8) 0.098
R2 0.222 0.294 0.410 0.489
△R2 0.071 0.117 0.078
F 36.046*** 20.704*** 16.985*** 8.751***
Independent variable: adoption intention
*: p value < .05; **: p value < .01; ***: p value < .001.

5. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION
5.1 Discussion
The results in this study only partially support
the conclusions of Rogers [17] and Midgley and
Dowling [14] - that consumer innovativeness is
significantly and positively related to intention to
adopt new products. Two plausible explanations are as
follows. (1) The scale for measuring innovation
adoption that was used by Hurt et al. [9] was designed
to measure intentions to adopt new concepts and new
products. Although the scale that was used herein was
based on this scale, the items were meant to measure
specifically intentions to adopt new products. (2) The
relationship between consumer innovativeness as one
construct and adoption intention for new products was
insignificant. Therefore, this study further broke down
consumer innovativeness into three constructs -
adoption of new methods, tendency to try new
products, and creativity. These two causes probably
explain why the findings in this study were not all
consistent with the results in earlier research.
The results also revealed that consumers who
were willing to try new methods had significantly
stronger intentions to adopt new products than those
who enjoyed trying new products and those who had a
high level of creativity. This finding suggests that our
common understanding that consumers who like to try
new products and who are more creative adopt new
products sooner is not entirely correct or universal.
Among the five attributes of new products,
complexity significantly and negatively affect
adoption intentions, whereas the other attributes were
positively but insignificantly related to adoption
intention. This finding is consistent with the results of
Holak and Lehmann [7] and Rogers [17]. Restated,
consumers are more likely to adopt a new product that
they perceive to have greater relative advantages,
compatibility, trialability, and observability, and lower
complexity. The difficulty of using a new product was
the main factor considered in its purchase or adoption.
Among consumers who were relatively more
willing to adopt new methods, the relative advantages
of a new product were not the most important factor
that they considered. Rather, trialability of the product
was key determinants of their buying decisions. The
results herein demonstrate that the trialability of new
products can reduce consumers’ insecurity about the
new products and thereby increase their intentions to
adopt them. Trialability can reinforce intentions to
adopt among those who like to try new products.
Although this group of consumers likes to use new
methods or instruments to perform tasks, they are
more willing to adopt a new product that is available
264 International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)
for trial and experience. Notably, this group of
consumers may also become providers of information
and promoters of new products.
Consumers who like to try new products do not
consider the complexity of a new product as the
primary factor. Instead, the advantages of a new
product dominated intentions to adopt. Results
indicate that the advantages of new products can
increase the intentions of novelty seekers to adoption
them. A feasible explanation is that although novelty
seekers have a strong interest in new products, if a
new product does not have any advantage over
existing products, they do not feel at all motivated to
accept and adopt the new product.
The results reveal that consumers with high
creativity do not consider compatibility as not the
primary factor in making adoption decisions. The
most important fact to this group is unknown, because
no attribute was found to affect significantly their
adoption decisions.
5.2 Managerial Implications
Firstly, attention should be paid to consumer
traits to increase consumers’ intentions to adopt new
products. More innovative consumers are more likely
to adopt new products. Product manufacturers and
suppliers should regard this group of consumers as
their target market, because they have are opinion
leaders in their groups. They will provide their friends
information and opinions about new products that
they have personally used. Such information and
opinions affect their friends’ buying decisions. This
group of consumers enjoys using new methods and
products and has a strong interest in new products.
Accordingly, product manufacturers and suppliers can
allow these opinion leaders to try their new products
first during the promotion of products to benefit from
their influence in their groups and attract the attention
of more consumers to the new products. By so doing,
they can increase the acceptability of their new
products.
Secondly, consumers are more likely to adopt a
new product with greater relative advantages, lower
complexity, and higher trialability. To increase
consumers’ intentions to adopt a new product,
manufacturers and suppliers should stress the relative
advantage of the product and offer free trials of the
product to experience consumers to feel the value of
the product.
Finally, complexity is the main determinant of
consumers’ intentions to adopt new products. The
results demonstrate that lower complexity is
associated with stronger intentions to adopt. Therefore,
to increase consumers’ intention to adopt a new 3C
product, manufacturers and suppliers should pay
attention to the ease of use of the product and
minimize the difficulties that consumers may
encounter when using the new product.
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research
Future researchers can probably gain a more
in-depth understanding of consumers’ intentions to
adopt new products by using scales for measuring the
adoption of innovations other than those used herein
or other innovation adoption theories. As new 3C
products are released, future researchers can also
validate the proposed model and test its reliability and
the findings herein against other new 3C products.
REFERENCES
1. Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W. and Engel, J.
F., 2006, Consumer Behavior, Thomson
Business and Economics, Mason, OH
2. Boone, L. E., 1970, “The search for the
consumer innovator,” Journal of Business, Vol.
43, No. 4, pp. 135-140.
3. Greenleaf, E. A. and Lehmann, D. R., 1995,
“Reasons for substantial delay in consumer
decision making,” Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 186-199.
4. Guiltinan, J. P., 1999, “Launch strategy, launch
tactics and demand outcomes,” Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No.
6, pp. 509-529.
5. Hirschman, E. C., 1980, “Innovativeness,
novelty seeking and consumer creativity,”
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, No. 3,
pp. 283-295.
6. Hoffmann, S. and Soyez, K., 2010, “A cognitive
model to predict domain-specific consumer
innovativeness,” Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 63, No. 7, pp. 778-785.
7. Holak, S. L. and Lehmann, D. R., 1990,
“Purchase intentions and the dimensions of
innovation: An exploratory model,” Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 7, No. 1,
pp. 59-73.
8. Holak, S. L., 1988, “Determinants of innovative
durables adoption an empirical study with
implications for early product screening,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 50-73.
9. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K. and Cook, C. D., 1977,
“Scale for the measurement of innovativeness,”
Human Communication Research, Vol. 4, No. 1,
pp. 58-65.
10. Im, S., Bayus, B. L. and Mason, C. H., 2003,
“An empirical study of innate consumer
innovativeness, personal characteristics, and
new-product adoption behavior,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31, No. 1,
pp. 61-73.
11. Im, S., Mason, C. H. and Houston, M. B., 2007,
“Does innate consumer innovativeness relate to
new product/service adoption behavior? The
C. H. Ho and H. Y. Tsai: Role of Innovativeness of Consumer in Relationship 265

intervening role of social learning via vicarious ABOUT THE AUTHORS

innovativeness,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 63-75. Cheng-Hsun Ho is an assistant professor in the
12. Kolter, P., 1994, Marketing Management: Graduate Institute of Information Management at
Analysis, Planning, Implement and Control (8th National Taipei University. His research interests
ed.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. focus on consumer behavior, e-commerce, e-learning,
13. Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O. and Madden, T. and virtual community.
J., 1995, “Consumer innovativeness and the
adoption process,” Journal of Consumer Wenchieh Wu is an assistant professor in Department
Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 329-345. of Business Administration, St. John’s University,
14. Midgley, D. F. and Dowling, G. R., 1978, Taiwan. He received Ph.D. in Business Administration
“Innovativeness: The concept and its from National Taipei University. Dr. Wu’s current
measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, research interests include organizational learning,
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 229-242. knowledge management, leadership, and customer
15. Robertson, T. S., 1967, “The process of behavior, publishing papers in refereed journals such
innovation and diffusion of innovation,” as NTU Management Review, International Journal of
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 15-16. Electronic Business Management, and Marketing
16. Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. F., 1971, Review.
Communication of Innovations, Free Press, New
York, NY. (Received May 2011, revised August2011, accepted
17. Rogers, E. M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations September 2011)
(4rd ed.), Free Press, New York, NY.
18. Schiffman, L. G. and Kanuk, L. L., 1987,
Consumer Behavior (3rd ed.), Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
19. Schmidt, J. B. and Calantone, R. J., 2002,
“Escalation of commitment during new product
development,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 103-118.
20. Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., Hofstede, F. T. and
Wedel, M., 1999, “A cross-national
investigation into the individual and national
cultural antecedents of consumer
innovativeness,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63,
No. 2, pp. 55-69.
21. Taylor, S. and Todd, P., 1995, “Decomposition
and crossover effects in the theory of planned
behavior: A study of consumer adoption
intentions,” International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 239-260.
22. Venkatraman, M. P. and Price, L. L., 1990,
“Differentiating between cognitive and sensory
innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and
implications,” Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 293-315.
23. Wortzel, R. 1979, Multivariate Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
266 International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2011)

消費者創新性對新產品的認知屬性和採用意圖之影響
何政勳 1*、吳文傑 2
1
國立臺北大學資訊管理研究所
新北市三峽區大學路 151 號
2
聖約翰科技大學企業管理系
新北市淡水區淡金路四段 499 號

摘要
在高度競爭的時代，新產品開發是企業尋求生機的方式之一，而新產品開發往往伴隨著
高成本及高風險。所以，提升消費者對新產品採用，便成為企業的重要議題。先前研究
指出，認知新產品屬性及消費者特性是影響消費者採用新產品的兩大關鍵變數，故本研
究以認知新產品屬性及新產品採用模型為理論基礎，探討消費者創新性、認知新產品屬
性對消費者採用意圖的影響，同時也探討消費者創新性在認知新產品屬性及新產品採用
意圖間關係的角色。研究結果顯示，消費者創新性會正向影響新產品的採用意圖；而新
產品屬性中的相對優勢、複雜性及可試驗性也會影響消費者對創新產品的採用意願。此
外，本研究以消費者創新性將消費者分群，期可協助企業了解消費者特性，以發展出合
適的行銷策略，促進消費者採用新產品。

關鍵詞：消費者創新性、新產品屬性、採用意圖
（*聯絡人：jeffher@mail.ntpu.edu.tw）