J N K P I N G I N T E R N A T I O N A L BU SI N E SS SC H O O L

J N K P IN G U N IVERSITY

Factors A ffecting C onsumer

R esistance t o Innovation
-A study of Smartphones-

Master Thesis within Business Administration

Author:

Kamran Khan
Kim Hyunwoo

Tutor:

Desalegn Abraha

Jnkping

May 2009

Abstract
Background: In mobile phone industry, Smartphones are gaining popularity as an
effective communication tool, providing users with Smart functionalities of both cellphone and Personal Digital Assistant (PDA). Experts in mobile industry expect that
smartphones are going to be dominant in mobile phone market. However, Smartphone
industry is facing a different reality, with its declining sales and less market share, forcing
research companies (Gartner, Canalys, etc.) to change their expectations. This situation
leads us to another important and often ignored perspective of innovation challenges, i.e.
consumers' resistance; as consumers' adoption and purchase decision makes a significant
difference in the success of innovative products.
Problem: Innovation has been called as a key factor for companies to survive and grow in
the long run, especially in the dynamic & complex markets and uncertain economic
circumstances. Despite the successful outcome of innovations, inhibition or delay in the
diffusion of innovation may translate this success into market failure, where resistance has
been called as one of the main reasons for inhibiting or delaying the innovation diffusion.
Consumers adoption of innovation depend upon several factors: the most important of
which are specified as consumers characteristics (psychological characteristics of
consumers; how they view the innovativeness with respect to that particular product), and
the innovation characteristics (outcome and effects of innovation). Past research on
innovation & consumers characteristics represents good relationship among the
innovation/consumers factors and the adoption/implementation of that innovation by
consumers.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the relationship between
consumers' resistance and different factors from innovation and consumers' characteristics.
Thereafter, important factors are identified that mainly affect/determine consumers'
resistance to smartphones. Moreover, the inter-relationship (correlation) among the selected
factors is found out, to know the affects of each factor on other factors.
Method: Following abductive approach, confirmatory factor analysis has been done on
pre-test questionnaires to test, improve, and verify the constructs (variables/questions) for
measuring the hypothesized factors. A theoretical model has been proposed from the
hypotheses; and Structural Equation Modeling has been applied, where results are estimated
through Partial Least Square and AMOS approaches, using a sample of 330 respondents
from Sweden. SmartPLS software has been used to estimate results, thereafter, AMOS has
been used to check and verify the results. Almost same results have been derived from both
approaches, while results from PLS are found as more satisfactory.
Conclusions: Five out of eight hypotheses have been supported by our empirical data,
where H1 i.e. relative advantage, H3 i.e. complexity, and H4 i.e. perceived risk, are from
innovation characteristics, while H6 i.e. motivation, and H7 i.e. favorable attitude towards
existing products are from consumers' characteristics. Motivation, Complexity, Relative
Advantage, and Perceived Risk are found as important factors (as per their order) that
affect/determine consumers' resistance to smartphones. Relative Advantage & Motivation
are found as positively correlated, and Perceived Risk & Complexity are found as positively
correlated. Negative correlation has been found between Perceived Risk and relative
advantage. Similarly, negative correlation has been found between motivation and
complexity. The proposed model of consumers resistance to smartphones shows an
acceptable goodness of fit, where 65% (R-square value) of variation in consumers
resistance is caused/explained by the hypothesized factors.

Acknowledgement
Thesis writing is always a great source of learning and experiences, which cannot be done
only with one owns efforts, but also dependent on tremendous help from supervisor,
faculty members, friends, and family. First, we would like to express our deepest gratitude
to our supervisor Desalegn Abraha, who provided us guidance, critical evaluation and
constructive feedback throughout the process of thesis writing. Our sincere thanks go to
Andreas Stephen (faculty member), who discussed and explained different statistical
methods/tools to achieve the objectives of this study.
We are thankful to all those friends who helped us improve, distribute, and respond to the
questionnaires. Our colleagues within the seminar group remained a good source of critical
feedback and helpful ideas/suggestions that made this work interesting and also
challenging for us. Last but not the least; we would like to thanks our family members for
their patience, encouragement, and support to complete this study.

Kamran Khan

&

Kim Hyunwoo

Jnkping International Business School, Sweden

May, 2009

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................... 6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
a.
b.
1.5

Background ............................................................................................6
Problem discussion ................................................................................7
Research questions .............................................................................. 10
Purpose ................................................................................................ 10
Hypothesis ............................................................................................ 10
Regression coefficients and Correlation ............................................... 11
Delimitations ......................................................................................... 11

2 Frame of reference .................................................................. 12

2.1
Innovation ............................................................................................. 12
2.1.1 Technological Innovation ...................................................................... 12
2.1.2 Types of Innovation .............................................................................. 12
2.2
Smartphone .......................................................................................... 13
2.3
Innovation Resistance .......................................................................... 13
2.4
Sheth Model ......................................................................................... 15
2.5
Rams Model ........................................................................................ 16
2.6
Yu and Lee Model ................................................................................ 17
2.7
Technological Acceptance Model (TAM) .............................................. 17
2.8
Related studies ..................................................................................... 18
2.9
Factors Affecting Consumers Resistance ............................................ 19
2.9.1 Innovation Characteristics Factors ....................................................... 20
2.9.2 Consumers Characteristics Factors...................................................... 23
2.10 Hypotheses formulation ........................................................................ 25
2.10.1 Relative Advantage .......................................................................... 26
2.10.2 Compatibility ..................................................................................... 26
2.10.3 Complexity ....................................................................................... 26
2.10.4 Perceived Risk ................................................................................. 26
2.10.5 Expectation for better products ........................................................ 26
2.10.6 Motivation ......................................................................................... 27
2.10.7 Attitude towards existing products .................................................... 27
2.10.8 Self-Efficacy ..................................................................................... 27
2.11 Theoretical Model of Consumers Resistance to Smartphones ............. 28

3 Method ..................................................................................... 29
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.9
3.9.1

Research Philosophy............................................................................ 29
Research Approach .............................................................................. 30
Research Method ................................................................................. 31
Research Strategy ................................................................................ 31
Data Collection ..................................................................................... 31
Sampling .............................................................................................. 32
Data Analysis and Tools ....................................................................... 33
Statistical Methods ............................................................................... 34
Factor analysis ..................................................................................... 34
Hypothesis testing ................................................................................ 35
Trustworthiness of the Research .......................................................... 36
Validity & Reliability .............................................................................. 36

3.9.2 Source of Empirical data ...................................................................... 37

3.9.3 Approach followed to derive results ...................................................... 37

4 Empirical Findings .................................................................. 38

4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2

Preliminary Analysis ............................................................................. 38

Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................... 38
Consistency (Reliability) Analysis ......................................................... 40
Variables Operationalization & Designing questionnaire ...................... 41
Descriptive Findings ............................................................................. 42

5 Analysis ................................................................................... 43
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.2

Testing Hypotheses .............................................................................. 43

Partial Least Square ............................................................................. 43
AMOS ................................................................................................... 44
Results Discussion ............................................................................... 45
Regression Equation ............................................................................ 48
Factors Inter-relationship (Correlation) ................................................. 48

6 Conclusion .............................................................................. 50
6.1

Suggestions for further research .......................................................... 51

7 References............................................................................... 52
8 Appendix.................................................................................. 60
8.1
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8.2.5
8.2.6
8.2.7
8.2.8
8.2.9
8.3
8.4

Pre-test Questionnaire.......................................................................... 60
Graphical Representation of factors and measuring variables ............. 60
Relative Advantage .............................................................................. 60
Compatibility ......................................................................................... 60
Complexity ............................................................................................ 61
Perceived Risk ..................................................................................... 61
Expectation for better Products ............................................................ 62
Motivation ............................................................................................. 62
Attitude towards Existing Products ....................................................... 63
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................... 63
Consumer Resistance .......................................................................... 64
Factor Loadings from the final empirical data ....................................... 65
Appendix 2: Final Questionnaire .......................................................... 65

List of Figures & Tables

1

Figure 2.1 .................................................................................................... 14

Figure 2.2 .................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2.3 .................................................................................................... 16

Figure 2.4 .................................................................................................... 17

Figure 2.5 .................................................................................................... 28

Figure 5.1 .................................................................................................... 43

Figure 5.2 .................................................................................................... 44

Figure 5.3 .................................................................................................... 45

Table 4.1 ..................................................................................................... 38

Table 4.2 ..................................................................................................... 41

Table 4.3 ..................................................................................................... 41

Table 4.4 ..................................................................................................... 42

Table 5.1 ..................................................................................................... 46

Table 5.2 ..................................................................................................... 47

Table 5.3 ..................................................................................................... 49

List of abbreviations used

CR= Consumers Resistance
RELADV = Relative Advantage
COMP = Compatibility
CLEX= Complexity
PRISK= Perceived Risk
EXPBPR= Expectations for Better Products
ATEXPR=Attitude toward Existing Products
MOTIV= Motivation

SE= Self-Efficacy
SEM = Structural Equation Modeling
CFA= Confirmatory Factor Analysis
EFA= Exploratory Factor Analysis
PLS= Partial Least Square
AMOS= Analysis of Moment Structures
PDA= Personal Digital Assistant
SPSS= Statistical Package for Social Sciences

Notes
The terms, Innovation resistance and consumers' resistance have been used
interchangeably. Similarly the terms like; consumers, respondents, and users are used
interchangeably.
The term consumers has been used for potential consumers of Smartphones.

Introduction

This chapter aims to introduce the reader to the background of the study topic, the problem area and a brief
discussion of related studies. The research questions are formulated, followed by the purpose, hypothesis, and
delimitation of this study.

1.1

Background

The trend in mobile phone innovations is going toward a mobile device integrating all
the consumer electronic products, like MP3, Camera, Internet (Computer), GPS, and
even TV. A new buzzword SMARTPHONE (marketing-friendly tag) represent this
well known PDA-Cell phone combination (PDA-Phone combo) with manifold
functions, representing a radical innovation in mobile phone industry (Park & Chen,
2007). Smartphones are excellent communication tools, providing users with smart
functionalities of both PDA (Personal Digital Assistants) & cell phones (Nanda et al.,
2008). These devices have become an important part of users' life, as they are not only
communication tools but also expressions of their lifestyle (Castells, 2006) providing
impressive usable interface (Monk et al. 2002). Smartphones are more powerful, with
increasing processor capability and storage space, and enhanced communication &
multimedia functions (Nguyen et al., 2008).
Experts in mobile industry expect that smart-phones are going to be dominant in mobile
phone market. However, Smartphone industry is facing a different reality, and the
statistics of current market show very less percentage of smart-phone users against
traditional/old mobile phone users. According to Gartner, proportion of Smartphone in
mobile phone market was at 12 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2008, from 11 per cent
in the fourth quarter of 2007. Research companies, who expected explosive growth of
Smartphone, are changing their expectations. In March 2009, Gartner said that increase
in Smartphone sales started to slow down (Gartner, 2009).
The general perception is that high price is the main reason for Smartphones' low
market shares (Martin, 2007). However, there is continuous downfall in the prices of
Smartphones, and most are available for 200USD (CNET, 2009) which is almost equal
to the price of normal mobile phone. Only 1% increase in smart phone market share
from 2007 to 2008 and considerable price decrease shows that price remained a least
important factor inhibiting the adoption. Smartphone manufacturers may not increase
the market shares by simply reducing the prices, as price itself cannot be the main
reason for its low market shares.
This situation leads us to another important and often ignored perspective of innovation
challenges, i.e. consumers resistance. As Smartphones represent radical innovation
which face considerably more consumers' resistance than incremental innovation
(Garcia et al., 2007, Heiskanen et al., 2007). Consumer (or end user) adoption and
purchase decision make a significant difference in the success of innovative product, so
consumers' resistance is one of the important factors in the success of innovation. It can
certainly inhibit and/or delay the diffusion of an innovation and thus has important
implications for the management of firms (Bradley & Stewart, 2002). Consumers, who
resist innovation, are most of the time non-adopters and represent a major part of
consumers. These consumers have strong potential for providing valuable information

necessary for the development, implementation, and marketing of innovation, and

should be given more attention in research studies (Laukkanen et al., 2008).
From managerial perspective, studying consumers' resistance to innovation is very
important and useful. Understanding resistance will help firms design/develop new
products so as to ensure market success, and high product failure rate that is prevalent
today, can be reduced. Once firms face consumers resistance to their innovations, they
can analyze the underlying causes of resistance, and better be able to design strategies to
deal with critical & important resisting factors (Ram, 1987). Studying the factors
affecting consumer resistance to Smartphones can provide its manufacturers/marketers
with useful information about these important factors that affects consumers' behavior
towards innovation.

1.2

Problem discussion

Innovation is a key factor for companies to survive and grow in the long run (Tidd,
2001), and has been called as the lifeblood of most organization (Balachandra & Friar
1997) especially in the dynamic & complex markets, and uncertain economic
circumstances (Assink, 2006). Despite the successful outcome of innovations, inhibition
or delay in the diffusion of innovation may translate this success in to market failure
(Gatignon & Robertson 1991, Crawford 1983, Mahajan et al. 2000). One of the main
reasons for inhibiting or delaying the innovation diffusion is consumers resistance,
which appears to have been neglected in the academic literature (Ram 1989, Ram &
Sheth, 1989) (Laukkanen et al., 2008, Kuisma et al., 2007).
Even though the innovative product may provide extensive benefits and improved
functionalities, researchers have found that consumers often convey less than
enthusiastic response to a number of new products (Gold, 1981; Brod, 1982; Murdock
& Franz, 1983; Blackler & Brown, 1985; Salerno, 1985; O'Connor et al., 1990). This
response is most usually not expected (Heiskanen et al., 2007) and is expressed in a
number of forms, but is usually termed as consumers' resistance (Ellen & Bearden,
1991). Consumers' resistance has been defined as Innovation resistance is the
resistance offered by consumers to an innovation, either because it poses potential
changes from a satisfactory status quo or because it conflicts with their belief structure
(Ram & Sheth, 1989, p. 6). The previous research findings imply that firms introducing
new products/innovations are required to take consumers' resistance more seriously
(Heiskanen et al., 2007).
Consumers' resistance plays an important role in the success of innovation, as it can
certainly inhibit or delay the consumer adoption. It has been termed as one of the major
causes for market failure of innovations (e.g. Ram 1989, Ram & Sheth 1989, Sheth
1981) and also a valuable source of information vital to the successful implementation
and marketing of innovation (O'Connor et al., 1990). If the resistance cannot be broken
down, adoption slows down, and the innovation is likely to fail (Ram 1989). Firms need
to understand consumers resistance, its reasons, and influencing factors; in order to
become much more efficient in their improvement efforts, and to identify ways to
improve competitiveness, productivity, and profitability (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995).
Consumer adoption of innovation depends upon several factors: the most important of
which are specified as consumers characteristics (psychological characteristics of

consumers; how they view the innovativeness with respect to that particular product),
and the innovation characteristics (outcome and effects of innovation) (Dunphy &
Herbig, 1995, W. Robert, 1998). Innovation characteristics research represents the
relationship among the attributes or characteristics of an innovation and the adoption,
use, or implementation of that innovation (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).
Robert (1998) argues that, there is a need to identify and understand the factors that
seem to most influence customers' resistance to innovative products. It is important to
study the effects of important factors (related to consumers' characteristics and
innovation characteristics) on consumers' resistance that will reveal the importance of
each factor, the intensity of their effect and their relationship. On the other hand,
understanding the key factors of consumers and innovation characteristics that affect
customers' resistance is crucial for firms' project team to improve its chances of making
the right decisions throughout the design and development efforts (W. Robert, 1998).
Ram (1987, 1989) argues that, the reasons for innovation resistance vary across
different consumers, which affects the adoption processes of each consumer. These
variances suggest that firms need to explore the different factors affecting consumer
resistance to innovations in order to minimize the possibility of product failure. Part of
the problem is that consumers may not understand the characteristics of the innovation
in the same way as the manufacturers/marketers (Ellen & Bearden, 1991). It has also
been suggested by researchers that smartphone manufacturers/marketers should
consider the factors influencing users adoption and resistance to mobile devices (Chang
& Chen, 2005).
The concept of innovation resistance was presented by Sheth (1981) as the "less
developed concept" in diffusion research. He researched psychology of innovation
resistance and proposed two psychological constructs which seems very useful in
understanding the psychology of innovation resistance. These psychological constructs
are; habit/behavior towards existing products and perceived risks associated with
innovation adoption. Following this model, Ram (1987) discussed innovation resistance
in more details and proposed a detailed model of innovation resistance, based on this
model; innovation resistance can be viewed as dependent on three sets of factors:
Perceived Innovation Characteristics, Consumer Characteristics, and, Characteristics of
Propagation Mechanisms. Rams model was later modified by Lee and Yu (1994), with
the argument that consumers' resistance is not dependent on propagation mechanism, as
propagation mechanism can only influence innovation diffusion.
Numerous studies have applied factors from consumers' characteristics and innovation
characteristics to assess consumer adoption of innovation, while some studies have
applied these factors to assess consumers' resistance. Below is a brief discussion to
mention these studies.
Different researchers have analyzed the affects of innovation characteristics on
innovation adoption (He et al., 2006, Brown et al., 2003, Tan & Teo, 2000, Holak &
Lehmann, 1990, He & Peter, 2007) and some on innovation resistance (Laukkanen et
al., 2007, Kuisma et al., 2007). He et al. (2006) analyzed innovation characteristics
factors affecting consumers' adoption, and found that compatibility and relative
advantage are positively and complexity is negatively related to consumers adoption of
online e-payment. Laukkanen et al. (2007) researched innovation characteristics (value,
risk, usage, image, etc.) as the barriers that cause innovation resistance to mobile

banking among mature consumers. Kuisma et al. (2007) used innovation characteristics
and their impact on consumers to analyze the causes of consumers' resistance to internet
banking.
A number of researchers have applied consumers' characteristics to examine its affects
on innovation adoption (Grabner-Kruter & Faullant, 2008, Wang et al., 2008, Tan &
Teo, 2000, Karjaluoto et al., 2002), and also on innovation resistance (Cho Seong &
Chang Dae, 2008). These are discussed later in the frame of reference in detail.
Several studies have been found in the literature, that examine consumers
characteristics and its effects on consumers behavior toward technological innovation,
using TAM (Technology Acceptance Model; states that, the intention to use a new
technological product is determined by the PU perceived usefulness and PEOU
perceived ease of use) with addition to other factors like risk, self-efficacy etc. (Fang
et al. 2005, Lu et al. 2003, Constantiou et al. 2006, Koivumaki et al. 2006, Han et al.
2006, Harkke 2006).
A study of physicians' adoption of a mobile system in Finland found that PU among
other factors played an important role in physicians intention to use the mobile system
(Han et al., 2006; Harkke, 2006). Yang (2005), Yui Chi et al. (2007), and Amin (2008)
applied TAM model to examine the affect of consumers characteristics factors on their
attitude towards mobile commerce, online banking, and mobile phone credit cards
respectively. Park and Chen (2007) applied TAM model with addition to self-efficacy
to study its affect on the adoption of smartphone by medical doctors and nurses. Roberts
and Pick (2004) combines the TAM model and innovation characteristics, adding the
factors of reliability, security, & cost etc; to analyze the crucial factors affecting
corporate adoption of mobile devices. Security risk has been found as critical factor
affecting adoption and resistance behavior.
The literature review reveals that very less number of studies have investigated factors
affecting consumers resistance, and even fewer studies have empirically examined
consumers perceptions that can make good understanding of innovation resistance
(Park & Chen, 2007). Due to per se different characteristics among consumers, and the
varied affect of innovations characteristics on them, both sides' perspectives and factors
could cause a significant level of variation in each factor's affects on customers'
resistance (He & Peter, 2007). Robert (1998) argues that, there is a need to identify and
understand the factors that seem to most influence customers' resistance to innovative
products. Awareness of the factors that play an important role in the adoption of
innovation is crucial and a smart source of providing useful insights concerning the
improvements of chances for customers' acceptance.
The study of consumers resistance in the case of smartphone, based on innovation and
consumers' characteristics can contribute to the innovation research field, a new breed
of information/knowledge regarding consumers' behavior towards newer mobile
technology. Ultimately, manufacturers/marketers would be in a better position to predict
consumers' reaction/interaction with the new products to minimize/overcome the
resulting consumers resistance.

1.3

Research questions

a. (i) What are the causal relationships among innovation characteristic factors and
consumers' resistance to smartphones?
(ii) What are the causal relationships among consumers' characteristic factors
and consumers' resistance to smartphones?
b. Which factors of consumers' and innovation characteristics
affect/determine consumers' resistance to Smart phones?

mainly

c. What is the inter-relationship among the innovation & consumers characteristics

factors?

1.4

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the relationship between consumers'
resistance and different factors from innovation and consumers' characteristics.
Thereafter, important factors are identified which mainly affect/determine consumers'
resistance to smartphones. Moreover, the inter-relationship (correlation) among the
selected factors is found out, to know the affect of each factor on other factors.
a.

Hypothesis

To answer the first research question, a theoretical model of consumers' resistance to

smartphones has been proposed and eight hypotheses (each for one factor) are
constructed to find the causal relationships (test the proposed model). This theoretical
model is based on some models (Rams, Yu and Lee Model, & TAM) and empirical
results from different studies (discussed in the frame of reference).
Based on the models and different studies on consumers behavior towards innovation,
we propose that; consumers' resistance to adoption of smartphone is mostly determined
by innovation characteristics; relative advantage, compatibility, perceived risk,
complexity, & expectation for better products, and consumers characteristics;
motivation, attitude towards existing products, & self-efficacy.
Our eight hypotheses are presented as follow:
H1= The lower the Relative Advantage, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
H2= The lower the Compatibility, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
H3= The higher the Complexity, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
H4= The higher the Perceived Risk, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
H5= The higher the Expectation for Better Smartphones, the higher the consumers' resistance
H6= The lower the motivation, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
H7= The more favorable/positive consumers' Attitude towards normal mobile phones, the
higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
H8= The lower the Self-efficacy, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones

10

b. Regression coefficients and Correlation

The second and third research questions will be answered from the results of
regression coefficients and correlation respectively, and will be performed on the same
empirical data collected for hypotheses testing.

1.5

Delimitations

This study is only based on those smartphones that fall under our definition for
smartphone, and is limited to only young people/consumers (accessible) in Sweden. It is
also limited to the opinions of consumers, as responses from mobile industry
(manufacturers/marketers) have not been collected.

11

Frame of reference

In this chapter, we have discussed relevant theories and models. These theories and model are used to build a
theoretical framework and propose a model to be applied on our empirical data; that will enable us to test
the hypotheses and fulfill the desired purpose of the study.

2.1

Innovation

An innovation is "an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual

or other unit of adoption" (Rogers, 1995, p. 11). An innovation may composed of
advancement in existing features, or establishment of new features to an existing
product/service, or it might be a totally new/innovative product/service introduced in
the (same or new) market (Bagozzi & Kyu-Hyun, 1999).
2.1.1

Technological Innovation

Technological Innovation is an iterative process started by the perception of a new

market and/or new opportunity for an invention (technological) which directs to
development/improvement, manufacturing, and then marketing tasks essential for the
commercial accomplishment of the invention. This reveals two important perspectives,
first, the innovation process comprises the technological development of an invention
with addition to the commercial introduction of that invention to consumers, secondly,
the innovation process is iterative and hence, instinctively includes the first opening of a
new product and the re-opening of an enhanced and developed innovation (Garcia &
Calantone, 2002). The commercialization of new product has been termed as the most
critical and also crucial activity that renders its accomplishment (Gourville J. 2006).
The above definition made it important to clarify and distinguish between an invention
and innovation. A discovery/invention that moves from the lab into production, and
adds economic value to the firm (even if only cost savings) is considered an innovation
(Garcia & Calantone, 2002). An invention cannot get turned into an innovation unless &
until it pass through the manufacturing/production and marketing activities, so and
invention/discovery that does not move towards commercialization remains an
invention (Connor & Colarelli, 1998).
2.1.2

Types of Innovation

Generally there are two types of innovation; incremental and radical innovation. In this
study we deal with radical innovation. A radical innovation is a product, process or
service with either unprecedented performance features or familiar features that offer
significant improvements in performance or cost that transform existing markets or
create new ones (Assink, 2006). It can also be defined as an innovation that breaks
with traditions in the field. They can also be labeled as radical, discontinuous,
generational or breakthrough (Dahlin & Behrens, 2005), and also disruptive innovation
(Tushman & Anderson, 1986). Radical innovations are essential and eminent for
manufacturers/marketers because of their capabilities to bring new means of
competitive advantage, on the other hand they are necessary for consumers as they are
the main source of social and economic change in everyday lives (Garcia & Calantone,
2002). The adoption of radical innovations require much more commitment and entail

12

higher expenditure and risks (including learning costs and psychological effort) than the
adoption of incremental innovations (Heiskanen et al., 2007).

2.2

Smartphone

While looking for the definition of smartphones, we realized that there is no agreedupon definition of Smartphone. Even, the definition of smart phone has changed over
time (Jo B., 2006). The literature discusses several and somehow controversial
definitions of Smartphone, however some commonalities can be found in the ways it
has been defined.
Gartner, a renowned analyst house, defines "Smartphone" as "A large-screen, voicecentric handheld device designed to offer complete phone functions while
simultaneously functioning as a personal digital assistant (PDA)" (Jo B., 2006).
Palm (a hand-held device manufacturer) definition on Smartphone is A portable
device that combines a wireless phone, e-mail and Web access and an organizer into a
single, integrated piece of hardware, that represents radical innovation in the mobile
phone industry (Mike, 2007). According to Yuan (2006), a smartphone, is any
electronic handheld device that integrates the accessibility of a mobile phone, personal
digital assistant, also called PDA, or other information device. Chang and Chen (2005)
mentioned that smartphone devices have one common baseline characteristics: they all
provide cell phone, E-Mail/Internet, and basic PDA functionality.
For this study, we define smartphones as a device that provides cell phone, EMail/Internet, PDA (personal digital assistant) functionality with full keyboard and
relatively big screen. Considering this, we regard the following phones as Smartphones;
the cell phone industry also recognizes these devices as Smartphones (CNET, 2009).
- Nokia N-series (N70/N73/N78/N79/N80/N81/N82/ N85/N86/N91/N95/N96/N97)
- Nokia E-series (E50/E51/E60/E61/E62/E63/E65/E66/E70/E71/E75/E90 Communicator)
- Nokia Xpress-Music Series (5700/5730/5800, etc)
- Nokia 6300/6500 Classic/ 6600/7610/7650/3250/3620/9290/9300/9500
- Samsung Omnia/Saga/Epix/BlackJack/SPH-M520/SPH-i325/SGH-i718/SCH-i760
- Samsung IP-830W/SCH-i830/SCH-i730/SP-i600/SPH-i700/SPH-i500/SPH-i300/I7500
- Apple iPhone
- HTC T-Mobile/Touch Diamond/Touch Cruise/S743/Touch Pro/Fuze
- LG KS20
- AT&T 2125/ 3125/8100/8125/8525
- Palm Treo/Centro
- RIM Blackberry Storm/Curve 8900/Curve 8330/Bold/Pearl Flip 8200, etc

2.3

Innovation Resistance

Innovation resistance is consumers' reaction towards an innovation, either because it

create potential changes from a satisfactory status quo or because it is in conflict with
their belief structure (Ram & Sheth 1989).

13

One aspect of innovation resistance is; resistance due to changes imposed by innovation
(e.g. changes in consumption or product) and is called resistance to change (Gatignon &
Robertson, 1989). Zaltman and Duncan (1977 p. 63) defined this as any conduct that
serves to maintain the status quo in the face of pressure to alter the status quo.
Resistance to change is a natural response of a human being to any changes that disturb
the balance of living environment or firms' actions (Watson, 1971; Zaltman & Duncan,
1977). As for innovation resistance, it is not an innovation per se that people resist but
the changes associated with it (Ellen et al., 1991; Schein, 1985). This creates the
postulation of pro-change bias, which means that every innovation is excellent and
everyone must implement/adopt it, because success of innovation is inevitable (Dunphy
& Herbig, 1995).
Innovation resistance has been called as one of the important critical success factors for
the adoption of technological innovation (Leonard, 2004), and adoption has been
portrayed as the result of overcoming resistance (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998). In another
research, adoption and resistance are called as the two ends of a continuum of reaction
towards innovation (Lapointe et al., 2002). Ram and Sheth (1989) discovered that, the
causes of innovation resistance stem from one or more of the adoption barriers. These
barriers are usage, value, risk, image, and traditional barriers. The usage barrier comes
when the innovation is not compatible with consumers' existing workflow, practices, or
habits. The value barrier is based on the economic value of an innovation that the
innovation does not offer strong performance-to-price compared to its alternative
products. Risk barrier is the degree of potential risks an innovation may entail.
Traditional barrier generally involve the changes an innovation may cause in daily
routines, also it a preference for existing, familiar products and behaviors over novel
ones (Arnould et al. 2004, p.722). The image barrier is associated with the innovations
identity (from its origin) like the product category, brand, or the country of origin (Ram
& Sheth 1989).
Different researchers have found that, even for successful new products, most of the
time consumers respond in less than enthusiastic way (Gold, 1981; Brod, 1982;
Murdock & Franz, 1983; Blackler & Brown, 1985; Salerno, 1985; O'Connor et al.,
1990), this less enthusiasm is often termed as consumers' resistance (Ellen & Bearden,
1991). Consumers resistance plays an important role in the success of innovation, as it
can certainly inhibit or delay the consumer adoption, and has been termed as one of the
major causes for market failure of innovations (e.g. Ram 1987, Ram & Sheth 1989,
Sheth 1981)
Resistance leads consumers response towards three forms, it may take the form of direct
rejection, postponement or opposition (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998, Mirella et al., 2009).
Based on the studies of Mirella et al., (2009) and Szmigin & Foxall (1998), we can
represent the concept of consumers' resistance in the figure as:

Postponement

Innovation

Resistance

Fig. 2.1: Concept of consumers' resistance (Derived from Mirella

(2009) and Szmigin & Foxall (1998) studies)
14

Opposition

Rejection

Postponement occurs when consumers delay the adoption of an innovation. It simply

refers to pushing the adoption decision to future (Kuisma et al., 2007). Even though
the innovation may be acceptable to them, but usually it is caused by situational factors,
like e.g. waiting for the right time, to become capable, or to make sure the product
works effectively. Postponement may take the form of acceptance or rejection after a
certain time period (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998).
Opposition refers to protesting the innovation or searching for further information after
the trial (Kuisma et al., 2007, p. 464). It is a kind of rejection, but the consumer is
willing to test/check the innovation before finally rejecting it. The causes of opposition
vary and can be many, e.g. habit resistance, situational factors, and consumers' cognitive
style might direct them to reject innovations (Mirella et al., 2009). Most importantly, an
opposition might lead the consumers to search for adequate information which can
direct them to acceptance. On the other hand consumers might reject an innovation on
the basis of existing awareness about the innovation when they understand that it is not
suitable for them (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998).
Consumers may directly reject an innovation, which is the most extreme form of
resistance (Mirella et al., 2009). When a mass of consumers reject an innovation,
manufacturers usually change or iterate/modify it appropriately and then re-introduce it
in the market. Rejection may occur if the innovation does not offer any valuable
advantage, is complex or risky, etc (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998). Rejection can be of two
types, passive and active rejection; where passive rejection occur when the innovation is
never really adopted or implemented, and active rejection occur when the innovation
has been considered but later rejected (Woodside Arch & Biemans Wim, 2005).

2.4

Sheth Model

Sheth (1981) researched psychology of innovation resistance and proposed two

psychological constructs, which has been termed very useful in understanding the
psychology of innovation resistance. These psychological constructs are; habit/behavior
towards existing products and perceived risks associated with innovation adoption.

15

Following this model, Ram (1987) discussed innovation resistance in more details and
proposed a detailed model of innovation resistance.

2.5

Rams Model

According to this model, innovation resistance can be viewed as dependent on three sets
of factors; Perceived Innovation Characteristics, Consumers Characteristics, and
Characteristics of Propagation Mechanisms, where each set consists of detailed factors.
Rams model of innovation resistance is a useful tool for studying innovation resistance,
and has been used most widely for assessing consumers resistance to different
innovations (Gatignon & Robertson 1991; Rogers 1995).

Fig. 2.3: Rams Model of Innovation Resistance

Source: (Ram, 1987)

In 1994 two Korean scholars, Yu and Lee modified Rams model of innovation
resistance and have excluded the characteristics of propagation mechanisms claiming
that propagation mechanism is a barrier to diffusion of innovation from a social
perspective rather than source of innovation resistance.
Consumers characteristics (Im et al. 2003) (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998) (Goldsmith &
Hofacker, 1991) and Innovation characteristics (Roger, 1995, Mohr, 2001) (Tornatzky
& Klein, 1982) have been termed as important in Rams model of innovation resistance,
affecting consumers resistance (Yu & Lee 1994, Midgley & Dowling 1993) (Lassar et
al., 2005, Lunsford Dale & Burnett Melissa, 1992).
In Rams model of innovation resistance, the factors of innovation characteristics are;
relative advantage, compatibility, perceived risk, complexity, and expectations for
better products (which are raised by the problem of inhibitory effect on the adoption of
other expected Innovations). On the other hand, the factors of consumers
characteristics are Perception, Motivation, Personality, Value orientation, Beliefs,
Attitude, Previous Innovative Experience, Age, education, and income. All of these

16

factors have different nature of affect on different products and industries, as there is no
evidence that these factors are all applicable and have the same affects on different
products.

2.6

Yu and Lee Model

Yu and Lee (1994) modified Rams model of innovation resistance. They distinguished
innovation barriers from innovation resistance. According to Yu and Lee, innovation
characteristic and consumer characteristic in Rams model generate consumer resistance
to innovation. However, propagation mechanism does not generate consumer resistance
to innovation but plays a role as a barrier in diffusion of innovation from a social
perspective. They claimed that only innovation characteristics and consumer
characteristics in Rams model generate innovation resistance.

Fig. 2.4: Lee and Yu model of innovation resistance

2.7

Source: (Lee & Yu, 1994)

Technological Acceptance Model (TAM)

According to TAM, the intention to use a new technology is effected by the PU

(perceived usefulness) and PEOU (perceived ease of use) for the specific technology.
TAM has been proposed by Davis (1989) and later applied on finding consumers
resistance to computer systems (Davis et al 1989). Later on, this model has been
extensively applied and extended by researchers to study technology acceptance
behavior and to identify the adoption decision determinants of technological innovation
(Gefen et al., 2004; Hsu et al., 2004; Luarn & Lin, 2005). TAM is a subset of Rams
model, and specifically study technological innovation, where perceived ease of use
(PEOU) is derived from complexity and perceived usefulness from relative advantage
(Roberts & Pick, 2004). Later on different researchers have chosen the factor selfefficacy as an important tool instead of perceived ease of use (PEOU) for examining

17

consumers behavior to innovative technological products (Ellen & Bearden, 1991, Tan
& Teo, 2000).

2.8

Related studies

Numerous studies have applied factors from consumers' characteristics and innovation
characteristics to assess consumer adoption of innovation, while some studies have
applied these factors to assess consumers' resistance.
Different researchers have applied Rogers (1983) model, to analyze the effect of
innovation characteristics on consumers' adoption (He et al., 2006, Brown et al., 2003,
Tan & Teo, 2000, Holak & Lehmann, 1990). The model proposed by Roger is used to
examine the affect of five innovation characteristics (Relative advantage, Compatibility,
Complexity, Trialability, and Observability) on innovation adoption, where most of the
factors (relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity) are related to consumers
resistance. He et al. (2006) applied Rogers innovation characteristics to examine
factors affecting consumers' adoption, and found that compatibility and relative
advantage are positively and complexity is negatively related to consumers' adoption of
Online E-payment. Im et al (2003) performed a study to identify and analyze
consumers' characteristics and its affect on innovation adoption. He and Peter (2007)
performed a study examining decision factors for the adoption of online payment
system. These decision factors are derived from innovation characteristics, consumers'
characteristics, and Technology Acceptance Model.
While examining consumers characteristics and its effects on consumers' behavior
toward technological innovation, several studies have used TAM with addition to other
factors (Fang et al. 2005, Lu et al. 2003, Constantiou et al. 2006, Koivumaki et al. 2006,
Han et al. 2006, Harkke 2006). Venkatraman (1991) analyzed the relationship between
personal characteristics and innovation adoption behavior and found that, it depends on
consumer innovativeness type (either sensory or cognitive) and product type.
Yang (2005), Yui Chi et al. (2007), and Amin (2008) applied TAM model to examine
the affect of consumers characteristics factors on their attitude towards mobile
commerce, online banking, and mobile phone credit cards respectively. Wang et al.
(2003) applied TAM model and perceived credibility factor, to examine consumers
characteristics and the subsequent affects on adoption of internet banking. Park and
Chen (2007) applied TAM model with addition to self-efficacy to study its affect on
the adoption of smartphone by medical doctors and nurses. Nysveen et al. (2005)
applying TAM model investigated the moderating affects of gender in explaining
intention to use mobile chat services. Roberts and Pick (2004) combines the TAM
model and innovation characteristics, adding the factors of reliability, security, digital
standards, cost, future web connectivity, and technology product suitability; to identify
and analyze the most important factor affecting corporate adoption of mobile devices.
Security risk has been found as critical factor affecting adoption and resistance
behavior.
The TAM model has been criticized by Pijpers et al. (2001) and Yang (2005), as most
of the studies based on this model failed to provide understanding of how consumers'
perceptions of innovative technologies are formed and how these perception can be
modified to increase adoption/acceptance and overcome resistance.

18

The literature review reveals that most of the studies have been done concentrating on
consumer adoption of innovation, but very less attention have been given to their affect
on consumers resistance (Gatignon & Robertson, 1985, 1991; Ram, 1987). The
adoption and diffusion theories do not examine the process of consumer resistance to
innovations. Majority of the diffusion studies have only looked at successful
innovations but consumers' resistance might be present even for successful innovations
(Ram, 1989). It has been argued by Ram (1989) and Sheth (1981) that it is much
effective to concentrate on understanding the factors affecting innovation resistance
rather than innovation adoption (Sheth 1981, Ram 1989). In the innovation diffusion
process, resistance usually takes place at a stage earlier to adoption (Ram 1987,
Woodside & Biemans 2005), so the first importance has to be given to identifying and
understanding consumers resistance. Resistance has been called as the other side of the
innovation phenomenon, and it is important to study to concentrate on both sides of the
coin (Kuisma et al., 2007).
In this study we have chosen relative advantage, as a substitute factor for perceived
usefulness (PU) and complexity & self-efficacy as substitute factors for perceived ease
of use (PEOU) in TAM. These factors have been empirically proved in the literature to
have considerable effect on the two factor PU (perceived usefulness) and PEOU
(perceived ease of use) of TAM (Park & Chen, 2007, Roberts & Pick, 2004) (Venkatesh
& Davis, 2000). Moreover, following Ram (1989) and Yu and Lee (1994) model, the
factors; compatibility, risk, expectation for better products, are chosen from consumerdependent category of innovation characteristics. Motivation and attitude towards
existing products are the factors chosen from consumers characteristics affecting
innovation resistance.

2.9

Factors Affecting Consumers Resistance

There are two kinds of factors that affect consumers resistance, and are based on
consumers characteristics and innovation characteristics (Ram, 1987, Kim, 2005, Yu &
Lee, 1994, Dunphy & Herbig, 1995, W. Robert, 1998).
Innovation characteristics are related to the outcome and the affect of new products on
consumers, which determine the amount of resistance generated (Ram, 1987) and has
the power to predict consumer adoption and expected resistance. It has been found by
some researchers that innovation characteristics provide greater explanation to
consumers' behavior towards innovation (Agarwal & Prasad 1997). Innovation
characteristics research describes the relationship between the attributes or
characteristics of an innovation and the adoption or implementation of that innovation
(Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).
Consumers' characteristics are the psychological characteristics of consumers e.g. how
they view the innovativeness with respect to that particular product (Dunphy & Herbig,
1995). Innovation resistance is dependent on the psychological characteristics of the
consumer. The important factors that have been identified as relevant to consumer
behavior in innovations context are: Personality, Attitudes, Value Orientation, Previous
Innovative Experience, Perception, and Motivation (Ram, 1987).

19

2.9.1

Innovation Characteristics Factors

According to Ram (1987), Kelly, and Kranzberg (1978), innovation characteristics can
be divided into two contexts, first is consumer-independent context and second is
consumers-dependent. The factors of consumer-independent context can be expected to
create the same type of resistance across all consumers (Ram, 1987), and is thus out of
the scope of this study. On the other hand, the affects of Consumer-dependent factors
vary across different consumers. Innovation characteristics (consumer-dependent)
factors effect consumers decision making to adopt a new product, these factors are;
relative advantage, compatibility, risk, complexity, and expectations for better products
(inhibitory effect on adoption of other innovations). Understanding these factors and
their affect on consumers' resistance is crucial for increasing the chances of innovation
success (Ram 1987, Yu & lee 1994). Following is the detailed discussion about each
factor.
2.9.1.1

Relative Advantage

The relative advantage of an innovation is the degree to which an innovation is

perceived as being better/superior than the idea it supersedes (Rogers & Shoemaker,
1971, p. 138). This definition has also been cited by (Tornatzky & Klein 1982; Holak &
Lehmann 1990). Relative advantage can be presented in economic profitability, social
benefits, time saved, hazards removed (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982), and also perceived
usefulness (PU) (Roberts & Pick, 2004).
Tornatzky and Klein (1982) found relative advantage to be an important factor in
determining adoption of innovations, affecting consumers resistance negatively.
Agarwal and Prasad (1997) found relative advantage as the dominant factor that predicts
consumers intention to adopt or resist innovation. In general, perceived relative
advantage of an innovation is positively related to its rate of adoption (Rogers 1983;
Tan & Teo 2000), and negatively related to consumers' resistance (Dunphy & Herbig,
1995).
Relative advantage, in addition to its direct and negative effect on consumers'
resistance, has indirect impact on perceived risk. If considerable advantages are
provided with a new product/service, the expected risk maybe decreased as consumers'
ignore its deficiencies/flaws (Holak & Lehmann, 1990). Moreover, relative advantage is
positively related to compatibility and negatively related to complexity (Holak &
Lehmann, 1990) as compatible product can be utilized effectively and may increase its
relative advantage, but relative advantage may decrease if the new product is complex
and consumers are unable to utilize it effectively (W. Robert, 1998).
2.9.1.2

Compatibility

Compatibility is the degree to which prospective consumers believe that the new
product fits with their socio-cultural norms or is consistent with existing values, past
experiences, style, behavior patterns, and needs (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995, Holak &
Lehmann, 1990). It has been regarded as an important component included in attitude
development (Rogers, 1995, Saaksjarvi, 2003) and is of special importance in
technological markets. A general cause expressed by different consumers for resisting
or not adopting new product is "no need" (Zeithaml & Gilly, 1987), even though all
technological innovations usually bring about a number of benefits/advantages for

20

consumers (Roger, 1995). Compatibility (or simply "congruence"), in prior research has
been found as a crucial factor than can predict consumers' adoption and resistance
behavior (Saaksjarvi, 2003).
There are two aspects of innovation compatibility (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982): (1) it may
refer to compatibility with the values or norms of the potential adopters or (2) may
represent congruence with the existing practices of the adopters. The first is a kind of
psychological or cognitive compatibility (e.g. compatibility with what people feel or
think about a technology) while the second is a more practical/operational compatibility
(e.g. compatibility with people practices).
Culture and previous experience with products can determine (to some extent)
consumers' sense of security with innovation (Holak & Lehmann, 1990). It has been
argued by Tornatzky and Klein (1982) that, no matter the compatibility is
normative/cognitive or practical/operational; from theoretical perspective, the
innovation compatibility to the potential adopter is positively related to adoption and
implementation of the innovation. This is also supported by Dunphy and Herbig (1995)
and Tan and Teo (2000), who state that compatibility is positively related to the
diffusion rate and negatively related to consumers' resistance.
Compatibility may lead the innovation evaluative process due to its direct affect on
purchase intention and other attributes (Holak & Lehmann, 1990). Research suggests
that compatibility has a large and direct positive effect on purchase intentions; as if an
innovation is perceived compatible, it is most probable that consumers will learn and
get information about the innovation (Holak & Lehmann, 1990). On the other hand, the
adoption rate is affected by the old/existing products, the more compatible the
old/existing products are, the less consumers intentions to adopt new products (Dunphy
& Herbig, 1995) and hence more consumers' resistance.
Although the impact of compatibility on other factors has not been studied empirically
(Saaksjarvi, 2003), but it is expected to positively affect relative advantage and
negatively affect perceived risk (Holak & Lehmann, 1990). For example, if a new
product is perceived as incompatible with consumers' work/life-style, it may not be
possible to recognize all its advantages. Moreover, if a new product is perceived as
compatible with past experience, principles, and life-style, they will be aware of the
previous items and hence much competent to judge the innovation in terms of its
dominance over existing/old products. The risk (especially psychosocial risks)
associated with innovation decreases, if innovation are perceived as more compatible
with one's work/life-style (Holak & Lehmann, 1990).
2.9.1.3

Complexity

Complexity can be defined as the degree to which the innovation is perceived as

relatively difficult to understand, use or comprehend (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971, p.
154). This definition has been followed by some other researchers (Holak & Lehmann,
1990; Dunphy & Herbig, 1995).
Different researchers have found complexity as negatively related to the innovation
diffusion and positively related to innovation resistance (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995,
Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Prior research has shown that; an innovative product with

21

considerable complexity demand more skills and efforts (to implement and use
innovation) to increase its adoption and decrease the possibility of consumers' resistance
(Cooper & Zmud 1990; Dickerson & Gentry 1983; Tan & Teo 2000).
It is generally believed that innovative products that are less complex, are easily adopted
by consumers (Holak & Lehmann, 1990). There exist a negative relationship between
complexity and relative advantage, as if a product is perceived as complex, it will be
difficult for consumers to try it and hence cannot be utilized for its advantages (Holak &
Lehmann, 1990, W. Robert, 1998). Complexity as a factor of consumers' characteristics
is expected to affect consumers' intention and lead towards adoption through relative
advantage, risk, and also self-efficacy. It has been argued by Holak and Lehman (1990)
that greater risk is associated with innovation which is perceived as more complex, so,
there is a positive relationship between complexity and perceived risk. Complexity
effect consumers' adoption indirectly through perceived risk (Holak & Lehmann, 1990).
2.9.1.4

Perceived Risk

Bauer (1960), Webster (1969), and Ostlund (1974) introduced risk as an additional
dimension in the diffusion and adoption of innovation, which is then added by Sheth
(1981) and Ram (1987) as another factor affecting consumers resistance. Here we are
talking about the degree of perceived risk associated with adopting & using innovation.
It is believed as positively related to consumers resistance and negatively related to
adoption (Ram, 1989, Dunphy & Herbig, 1995).
Newer technologies/products may be perceived by consumers as more risky. Research
has shown that the perceived risk is a critical determinant of a consumers willingness
to adopt an innovation (Shimp & Bearden, 1982). As it is very difficult to capture risk
as an objective reality (Dowling & Staelin, 1994), it is interpreted as the consumers
subjective expectation of suffering a loss in pursuit of a desired outcome (Yiu Chi et
al., 2007, p.336). Consideration for the consequences of an action, including the
perceived risk, are critical aspects that formulate attitude towards that action (Crisp,
Jarvenpaa, & Todd, 1997), thus perceived risk may enhance consumers' resistance from
adoption of an innovative product. Therefore perceived risk is believed to have positive
relationship with consumers resistance (Yiu Chi et al., 2007).
Even in situations, where a consumer has evaluated and considered to adopt an
innovation, perceived risk and uncertainty create substantial barriers to adoption
(Aggarwal et al., 1998). Innovation always involves some degree of perceived risks
because of uncertainty (Ram & Sheth, 1989), so innovation that associated with
considerable perceived risk, has slower rate of diffusion (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995) and
higher consumers resistance (Ram, 1989).
Usually, perceived risk is termed as an innovation characteristics, however Fain and
Roberts (1997) argue that most of the time, risk is rather a perception of a consumer
than merely a characteristic of an innovation. But looking at the dominant literature, we
have included perceived risk in innovation characteristics.
Researchers have identified six key dimensions of perceived risk, which are; financial,
performance, physical, time, social, and psychological risks (e.g. Cherry & Fraedrich,
2002; Ram, 1989; Dholakia, 2001).

22

Following are the definitions of the perceived risk dimensions (Jacoby & Kaplan 1972;
Hirunyawipada & Paswan 2006; Dholakia, 2001; Ram, 1989; Kuisma, Laukkanen &
Hiltunen 2007).
a) Financial risk captures the financially negative outcomes for consumers after
they adopt new products. It is also called the fear of economic loss.
b) Performance risk concerns with the belief that the new product / innovation
will not perform as anticipated. It is also called the fear of performance
uncertainty.
c) Physical risk is the perception that products will be physically harmful to
adopters.
d) Time risk relates to the perception that the adoption and the use of the product
will take too much time (see e.g. Roselius 1971).
e) Social risk has to do with the negative responses from consumers social
network. Ram called it the fear of social ostracism or ridicule.
f) Psychological risk is the fear of psychological discomfort. The nervousness
arising from the anticipated post-purchase emotions such as frustration,
disappointments, worry, and regret.
From these six kinds of risk, financial, performance and also security risk (security of
important personal information and the product itself) have been found as the most
important types of risk related to smartphone adoption (Richardson, 2003; Roberts &
Pick, 2004).
2.9.1.5

Expectation for better products

According to Rams model of innovation resistance, inhibitory effect on the adoption

of other innovations is one of factors that affect innovation resistance. In some cases,
the adoption of one innovation products may have an inhibitory effect on the adoption
of other innovations (Ram, 1987). If a person purchases an innovative product such as
expensive high resolution digital cameras, the person is not likely to purchase another
new digital camera with improved performance and more features within a short period
of time. The person is postponing his/her purchases. He/she reasons, quite correctly,
that if he/she waits, a better product with a lower price tag will soon be in the market
(Ram & Sheth1989). Products based on new technologies are especially susceptible to
this factor. For example, even in the corporate world, many companies decide to wait
for a new generation of products with a better performance-to-price ratio before
upgrading their computer systems (Ram & Sheth 1989).
Lee and Yu (1994) and Kim (2005) used a term of expectation for better products
rather than inhibitory effect on the adoption of other innovations as it is easy to
understand and give a clear meaning. In this study, we will also use the term
expectation for better products.
2.9.2

Consumers Characteristics Factors

For this study we have chosen Motivation and attitude towards existing products, as
motivation is believed as the central key factor driving consumer behavior (Barczak et
al., 1997), and attitude towards existing product is to examine the role of existing

23

products in driving consumers resistance. Moreover self-efficacy has been added, as it

believed to play a major role in technological innovative products (Ellen et al. 1991,
Compeau & Higgins 1995). One of purposes behind choosing these factors is because
of their easy measurement procedure and intensive use by different researchers (Lee
Matthew et al., 2007, Barczak et al., 1997, Wang et al., 2008, Wang et al., 2003).
2.9.2.1

Motivation

Motivation is defined as goal-directed arousal that drives consumers need (MacInnis

& Moorman, 1991). It entails internal processes that provide behavior with power and
direction. Power describe the strength, determination, and concentration of the
concerned behavior, while direction provides a specific purpose to the behavior (Lee
Matthew et al., 2007).
Herzberg at el. (1959) theorized that behavior can be motivated extrinsically and
intrinsically. Based on this, motivation is divided in two types, the extrinsic motivation
and intrinsic motivation which are two kinds of drivers that evoke a specific outcome
behavior. Perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment are typical examples of
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation respectively, in technology adoption context (Lee
Matthew et al., 2007).
Extrinsic motivation involved performing an activity for achieving other goals i.e. to
gain other valued outcomes rather than the activity itself (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw,
1992) e.g. a decision to use computer for writing a letter (Lee Matthew et al., 2007)
where behavior is driven by its perceived value and expected benefits. Davis et al.
(1992) argue that perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) are the
two paradigm of extrinsic motivation, and found that if users perceive something
(technology) to be useful and easy to use, it is more probable that they will use it. It has
also been found by Devis et al. (1992) that consumers' perceived usefulness increases
through increase in perceived ease of use. In Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) the
two factors, PU and PEOU are widely applied in research studies on technology
acceptance (Lee Matthew et al., 2007).
Intrinsic motivation involves performing an action for its own sake, as the action is
itself exciting, engaging, entertaining etc. It means the passion to do an activity for the
reward which derives from the enjoyment of the activity itself e.g., expressing
personality and status by using a product. Looking at the perspective of intrinsic
motivation, behavior is provoked from the feelings of pleasure, joy, and fun (Lee
Matthew et al., 2007). It has been empirically proved that both extrinsic (e.g., perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use) and intrinsic (e.g., perceived enjoyment)
motivators are important to the formation of intention to use (adoption) (Lee Matthew et
al., 2007).
2.9.2.2

Attitude towards existing products

This is a general factor, which examines consumers' attitude toward existing products
and is influenced by tradition and the abilities of existing product in serving consumers
needs and wants. The tradition value is associated with individuals favorable attitude
towards the past and present, and shows individuals respect for culture, social norms,
and traditions (Schwartz, 1992). The tradition value implies consumers favorable

24

attitude toward the products that they are currently using. In such case, consumers will
be unwilling to replace their old and still functional products with innovative products.
In this era, products life cycle is becoming shorter and shorter and competition getting
tougher, new products are coming in the market with much faster pace, and existing
products/technologies often become outdated very quickly and prematurely. Due to
which, plenty of opportunities are available to consumers to abandon their existing
products, and switch to much advanced/improved new products. But, consumers with
strong favorable attitude toward existing products will resist innovative products and
will continue using their existing products until they fail to function (Wang et al., 2008).
It has also been found by researchers that consumers who are not satisfied with the
existing products are more likely to adopt change and go for new products, on the other
hand, consumers who are satisfied with the existing products will keep up using the
same (Karjaluoto et al., 2002).
2.9.2.3

Self-Efficacy

Compeau and Higgins (1995, p. 193) define self-efficacy as an individuals perception

of his or her ability to use a technological innovative product. Self-efficacy is a
determinant of perceived ease-of-use and the usability of an item (Davis 1996). It is also
defined as, an individuals self-confidence in his or her ability to perform a behavior
(Bandura 1977, 1982). Self-efficacy refers to the confidence in ones ability and
competence to manage and perform the courses of action required to accomplish a
desired outcome (Bandura 1997a, 1982), and initiates from different origins including
performance achievement, previous experience, personal interests, etc. (Bandura,
1997b).
It has been found by some researchers that self-efficacy has the power to foresee
intentions to use a variety of technological innovation (Hill et al., 1986). A consumer
with low self-efficacy will probably select a product which can be handled easily, even
if there are better/advance products available. Ellen et al. (1991) empirically verified
that self-efficacy is also a factor that affects resistance to technological innovations.
Other researchers have also considered consumers' self efficacy as a very important
factor to study resistance and diffusion of innovation (Tan & Teo, 2000).
Self-efficacy is selected as one of the factors in this study as prior studies have revealed
that self-efficacy shows a substantial affect of consumers' perceptions of his ability to
use the new technological product on his decision for product adoption (Park & Chen,
2007). It has been argued that, without skill, performance is not achievable; without
self-efficacy, performance may not be endeavored (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).
Consumers' self-efficacy and their perception bring about a causal relationship between
the adoption of technological innovation and consumers' cognitive factors. Across a
wide range of behaviors, self-efficacy has been shown to influence the willingness to act
as well as actual action initiation (Bagozzi & Kyu-Hyun, 1999).

2.10 Hypotheses formulation

To identify the causal relationship among consumers' resistance to smartphones and the
above discussed eight factors, we set up hypotheses based on the models of innovation
resistance and previous research findings. Following the above discussed literature on

25

eight factors, a positivistic research paradigm was adopted and eight hypotheses have
been constructed.
2.10.1 Relative Advantage
In this thesis, we defined relative advantage of smart phones as advantage over nonsmart phones. Based on past research and empirical results (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995),
relative advantage is hypothesized to have negative effect on consumers' resistance to
smartphones.
Hypothesis 1
The lower the Relative Advantage, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
2.10.2 Compatibility
Based on the definition of compatibility in innovation perspective, smartphones
compatibility is checked with consumers' needs and life/work style. Following the past
research on compatibility (Saaksjarvi, 2003, Dunphy & Herbig, 1995, Agarwal &
Prasad, 1997, Holak & Lehmann, 1990), we hypothesize compatibility to have negative
effect on consumers' resistance to smartphones.
Hypothesis 2
The lower the Compatibility, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
2.10.3 Complexity
Most of the researchers have found complexity to have negative effect on consumers'
adoption and positive effect on resistance (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995, Tan & Teo, 2000,
Holak & Lehmann, 1990) so we hypothesize complexity to have positive effect on
consumers' resistance to smartphone.
Hypothesis 3
The higher the Complexity, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
2.10.4 Perceived Risk
Three kinds of risk (financial, performance, and security risk) have been found as
important in case of smartphone. Following the past research on perceived risk and
consumers' behavior towards innovation (Yiu Chi et al., 2007, Dunphy & Herbig, 1995,
Aggarwal et al., 1998), we hypothesize perceived risk to have positive effects on
consumers' resistance to smartphones.
Hypothesis 4
The higher the Perceived Risk, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
2.10.5 Expectation for better products
Severe inhibitory effects of smartphones (effect of smartphones on the expected
adoption of more advanced and better mobile phones in future) make consumers resist

26

its adoption and expect much better smartphones. It is measured by consumers'

expectation for more convenient & useful phones and with lower prices. Based on
some studies (Kim, 2005, Lee & Yu, 1994) we hypothesize expectations to have
positive effect on consumers' resistance to smartphone.
Hypothesis 5
The higher the Expectation for Better Smartphones, the higher the consumers' resistance
2.10.6 Motivation
Motivation drives consumers' needs and intentions to adopt innovation. Following
researcher arguments and empirical results (Lee Matthew et al., 2007, Davis et al.,
1992), we hypothesize motivation to have negative effects on consumers' resistance to
smartphones.
Hypothesis 6
The lower the Motivation, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones
2.10.7 Attitude towards existing products
This factor is used to find consumers satisfaction from existing products and it plays an
important role in driving consumers' behavior toward innovations. This factor has been
found to have positive effect on consumers' resistance towards innovation (Wang et al.,
2008, Karjaluoto et al., 2002), and therefore we hypothesize consumers' favorable
attitude towards normal mobile phones to have positive effect on consumers' resistance
to smartphones.
Hypothesis 7
The more favorable/positive consumers' Attitude towards normal mobile phones, the higher the consumers'
resistance to Smartphones
2.10.8 Self-Efficacy
Confidence in one's ability to use/understand smartphones without any difficulty, may
increase the chances of adoption, and will have negative effect on consumers'
resistance. Different researchers have found self-efficacy to have negative effect on
consumer resistance and positive effect on consumers' adoption of innovative products
(Ellen & Bearden, 1991, Tan & Teo, 2000, Park & Chen, 2007), based on which we
hypothesize consumers self-efficacy to have negative effect on resistance to
smartphones.
Hypothesis 8
The lower the Self-efficacy, the higher the consumers' resistance to Smartphones

27

2.11 Theoretical Model of Consumers Resistance to

Smartphones
Following our research problem, purpose, and the formulated hypotheses, we can
construct a theoretical model to express the hypothesized relationship between
consumers' resistance and factors of innovation & consumers characteristics. This
model will be applied in our analysis of empirical data, collected through
questionnaires. Accordingly, the factors; relative advantage, compatibility, motivation,
and self-efficacy are hypothesized to have negative relationship (-ve effect) with
consumers resistance to smartphones. This means that increase in these factors will
decrease consumers' resistance to smartphones and vice versa. On the other hand, the
factors; complexity, perceived risk, expectation for better products, and attitude towards
existing products, are hypothesized to have positive relationship (+ve effect) with
consumers' resistance to smartphones. This means that increase in these factor will
increase consumers' resistance to smartphones and vice versa. These factors are also
correlated with each other, which is represented by two way arrows linking them
together. Empirical data will be analyzed on the basis of this model to; test the
hypothesis, answer the of research questions and achieve the purpose of this study.

Fig. 2.5: Theoretical Model of Innovation Resistance to Smartphones

28

Method

In this chapter we have discussed different available methods and why certain methods are chosen as
appropriate for performing this study. Moreover, we have discussed how this study has been conducted
through the selected method.
Method is a tool/technique for accomplishing the objective of the study in order to
create new knowledge. As stated above, the purpose of this chapter is to make the
reader understand why certain methodological approaches are chosen and how the study
has been conducted.

3.1

Research Philosophy

The approach for conducting research depends upon the way researcher thinks about
knowledge creation while accomplishing the objective of his study (Saunders, Lewis &
Thornhill, 2003). In research philosophy, there are three dominant scientific approaches
about the research processes on how knowledge can be created. These three views are
positivism, interpretivism/hermeneutics and realism, where positivism and hermeneutics
are termed as the opposite poles of each other (Saunders et. al., 2003, Widerberg, 2002).
In the positivism philosophy, researcher and the interpretations are assumed as objective
and value-free, and there is relatively high level of generalization. Positivism holds the
notion of objectivity (Remenyi et al. 1998) and the author/researcher is independent of
the research subject and is not affected nor has any effect on the subject but play a role
of statistical analyzer. Where, the interpretation/discussion is made only on the basis of
actual findings. In positivism, existing theories are used to develop and test hypothesis
for further theory development, which may be tested in future research. For the purpose
of facilitating replication, highly structured statistical analysis is done on the basis of
quantifiable-observation/quantitative-data (Saunders et. al., 2003).
In the hermeneutics/interpretivism view, there is a reduced level of generalization
because of complex and often unique business circumstances, where researchers have
deep interaction and often significant effect on interpretation and results (Saunder et al
2007). The interpretation and results are somehow affected (unintentional) even if the
researcher(s) have strong desire to avoid. The objective of hermeneutics is to gain a
good understanding of the subject reality, which is often a challenge because of
changing business world. Researchers' close interaction and interpretation is crucial in
understanding the subject in meaningful ways (Saunders et. al. 2003).
The third research philosophy realism is another epistemological position related to
scientific enquiry. In realism, the reality is assumed as the truth and exist independent of
human thoughts and beliefs. Interpretation and behaviors are affected by social forces
regardless of their awareness. Realism aims to understand the subjective reality
concerning people in a broader social environment which has an effect on peoples
views and behaviors (Saunders et. al., 2003).
The preference of philosophy is based on the choice of research question, and usually
there is a mixture of the three philosophies. Widerberg (2002) argues that these three
views are not fully independent in all aspects, but are mutually dependent and overlap
each other. Hermeneutic approach uses assumption that the researcher has to participate

29

in the phenomenon that is studied, but it greatly influences the outcome of the study,
and is a major disadvantage of hermeneutics approach.
For this thesis, the philosophies considered to be most appropriate are positivism and to
some extent realism. As positivism believes that an assumption is only correct when it
corresponds to the reality, where existing theories are used to test hypothesis through
statistical analysis in relation with empirical case (Saunders et. al., 2003, Lvblad,
2003), which is the purpose of this study. Secondly, realism approach assumes that
existing theories are determined through testing against empirical data. In order to test
the power of prediction and/or explanation it is believed as crucial to test them
frequently, quantitative data should be used and theory testing is performed through
statistical tools and exploring the relationships (Wiklund, 1998). In this study, the
empirical data collected from different people in Sweden (through survey
questionnaires), is based on their belief/opinions about our empirical case
(Smartphones). Thus, it is aimed to understand people's subjective reality, i.e. realism,
which, according the Saunder et al (2003) has effects on people views/behavior. After
collecting empirical data (quantifiable), statistical analysis will be done to test the
hypotheses which are constructed on the basis of existing theories. So another
philosophy to be considered for this study is positivism.

3.2

Research Approach

It is important to get an awareness of the available approaches and their applicability

within the field of study, which serve as a basis for research design. There are two types
of research approaches, inductive and deductive, where researchers chose one and also
two, called abductive approach (combination of inductive and deductive) (Sekaran,
2003).
In inductive approach (the opposite of deductive) data (usually qualitative) is collected
using interviews & observations, etc. to analyze and developed into theory, with the
objective of gaining a deep understanding of a phenomenon (Saunders et al., 2003).
Sekaran (2003) defined induction as a process where certain phenomenon is observed
and conclusion are derived on the basis of those observations. This approach is lessstructured and more flexible but usually faced with the problem of difficulty in
accessing data or insufficient preceding knowledge (Saunders et al., 2003).
In deductive approach, theory is developed by hypothesis testing in an appropriate way.
Same as positivist view, the researcher performs the study by distancing himself
conducting an objective (statistical) analysis. The results are quantifiable and can be
generalized to most extent (Saunders et. al., 2003). Sekaran (2003) defined deduction as
a process of reaching towards conclusions by interpreting the results of the data
analysis. Welman, Kruger and Mitchell (2005) state that deductive approach deals with
finding causal relationships between variables and deriving conclusions from the
empirical data, where hypotheses are developed and tested. Researchers have expressed
deduction as a research approach where laws and models provide the basis of
explanation (Hussey & Hussey, 1997).
In abductive approach, the researcher utilizes both inductive and deductive approaches
by moving back and forth in the theory and empirical findings. This approach looks for

30

common findings that most suitably explain and solve the issues about the collected
data. This will make the facts in certain order, and will provide valuable tools to analyze
and deal with the issues (Reichertz, 2004). The purpose of this study is to find the affect
(causal relationship) of different factors on consumers' resistance, by developing and
testing hypothesis on the basis of empirical data. The empirical data is collected via
survey questionnaires, and two pre-tests are done to make the questionnaire fit for the
required data collection. This made us to move back and forth in the theory and
empirical findings (partial) to finalize the questionnaire. Based on this, the abductive
approach is the most appropriate for accomplishing the desired objective. According to
Saunder et al (2007) it is perfectly possible and often more advantageous to combine
induction and deduction.

3.3

Research Method

There are two methods of conducting research, which are; qualitative and quantitative
methods, where no method is considered to be better than another. Research questions
should be taken in consideration before deciding for the most suitable method of
conducting study (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005). Where why and how questions are
generally followed by qualitative research and, what where and when questions are
generally followed quantitative research (Maylor & Blackmon, 2005).
Maylor and Blackmon (2005) state that, when a study involved statistical conclusion,
quantitative research is conducted while the qualitative approach of research deals with
processes, such as analyzing non-numeral information, which is out of the scope of this
study. Moreover, quantitative approach is strongly linked with hypothesis testing
(Saunders et al, 2003), keeping in view the purpose of this study, quantitative
measurements (statistical analysis) have been done in order to be able to objectively
interpret and analyze the data of a larger sample.

3.4

Research Strategy

The different choices of strategies available are; experiment, survey, case-study, action
research, grounded theory, ethnography and archival research. Surveys allow for
gathering large quantity of data from a sample of population in an economical and
efficient way (Saunders et al, 2003). Considering the purpose of this thesis, it is not
possible to use interview and or observation (qualitative method) instead we have
chosen to use the survey through questionnaires which is argued as a useful tool for
gathering information on a wide variety of topics (Thomas, 2004) using quantitative
method. Survey is a popular & common strategy, used to answer what, who, & how
much/many questions. This strategy is comparatively easy to understand and explain,
as it collects quantitative data on which inferential or descriptive statistics is applied to
derive meaningful results (Saunder et al. 2007).

3.5

Data Collection

There are two kinds of data collection sources, primary and secondary sources. Where
primary data is referred to the information gathered firsthand by the researcher,
specifically for achieving the study purpose. While secondary data refer to information
obtained from already existing sources, and are collected for other purposes but can be

31

re-used for different purposes (Sekaran, 2003). So, most of the time it is not possible to
achieve the research objective by only using secondary data, as it doesnt fully match
the specific purpose of the study, and may draw a skewed picture (Saunder et al. 2003).
The aim of this study is to find consumers' behavior based on a set of selected factors,
for which it is important to collect primary data with addition to secondary data.
Secondary data is collected from multiple sources, which mostly include journal
articles, books, and web/online information. Primary data can be collected through
interviews, observations, and questionnaire surveys (Sekaran, 2003; Zikmund, 2000).
Considering the purpose of this study questionnaire survey is the most appropriate
method of primary data collection, as there are large numbers of respondents targeted in
a wide geographical area. Questionnaire survey is a very cost efficient, free from
interviewer effect, and useful; easily accessing a wide range of sample in less time. For
getting fast and many responses with low cost, web-based surveys are conducted. As,
Williamson (2002) stated that web-based surveys are characterized by fast responses,
low cost, the ability to target a very large sample, and data can be easily managed for
statistical analysis through software. Surveys are conducted by inquiring selected
respondents from a targeted population, to provide the required information.

3.6

Sampling

It might be rarely possible to collect data from every suitable member/case, which is
called census, however due to certain limitations of time and cost; it is often impossible
and impracticable to do so. Sampling is a process of choosing a sufficient number of
elements/cases/individuals from the population, where population is the entire group of
people, events, or elements of interest that researcher desires to investigate (Sekaran,
2003). Saunder et al. (2003) argue that it should not be assumed that census would
necessarily give more useful and accurate output than data collection from a
representative sample of the whole population. Sampling techniques provide a number
of methods/techniques to select a subset of population that really represents the whole
population to most extent (Saunder et al. 2003).
There are two major kinds of sampling design, probability and non-probability
sampling. Probability sampling utilizes some form of random selection, where all the
elements/cases/individuals in the targeted population have the same probabilities of
being chosen. Probability sampling is used when the representativeness of the
population is of importance to make wider generalizability. Non-probability sampling
does not involve random selection, which means that the population elements have no
probability associated, to be selected as subject sample. The disadvantage of nonprobability sampling is that the results cannot be generalized confidently (Sekara,
2003). Whether to use probability or non-probability sample specifically depends upon
researchers' concerns about three factors, which are time, cost/approach and
generalizability. If researchers are more concerned about generalizability, it is
recommended to use probability sampling, on the other hand, if researchers are more
concerned about time and cost (and have limited approach) and less concerns for
generalizability, non-probability sampling is recommended (Sekaran, 2003). For this
study, our concern about time and cost (also our limited approach) outweigh the
concerns for generalizability, and hence non-probability sampling is done. Moreover,
the population of this study is very large, i.e. all young individuals in Sweden, so it is

32

impossible for us, to do probability sampling as we do not have access to the whole
population.
There are three common techniques of non-probability sampling; Convenience,
Judgment, and Quota sampling. Where, convenience sampling is the widely used
techniques, as it is a least time consuming and least expensive way, enabling the
researcher to collect a large number of responses (Wrenn, Loudon & Stevens, 2001).
The major disadvantage of convenience sampling is that, it is prone to bias, sampling
error, and less generalizable (Saunder et al., 2007). The population of this study has
been chosen as the potential young buyers of smartphones in Sweden, and keeping in
view such a large population, convenience sampling has been selected as most
appropriate method to get responses from a large size of population. Web-based/online
questionnaires are designed, to get responses, as much as possible. With addition to
web-based/online questionnaire, hard copy questionnaires are filled by conveniently
accessible people in Jonkoping city. The link of online questionnaire has been sent via
email to different people to access a large number of potential respondents
(http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/126929/smartphone). Some community websites,
Facebook, Tagged, Orkut, and Hi5 are also used to send questionnaires. The time frame
of collecting responses was ten days, where most of the responses came in the first four
days.

3.7

Data Analysis and Tools

SPSS, AMOS, and Smart-PLS, statistical software have been used to perform statistical
analysis, and achieve the desired objectives of the study.
First, a large questionnaire was designed and all related and frequently used (by
different researchers) variables/questions (for measuring the selected factors) have been
included (see table 4.1). Likert scale from 1 to 5 has been used to measure the
constructed variables (where 5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree,
1=strongly disagree). The first pre-test has been done by filling & checking the
questionnaire by twenty different students in Jonkoping International Business School,
to improve the questions and replace any confusing & difficult terms. The purpose of
first pretest was also to see, if we have overlooked some important
dimensions/elements. After the first pre-test, a full version questionnaire has been
finalized for collecting data to perform confirmatory factor analysis. A total of 160
responses have been collected for performing the CFA. Confirmatory factors analysis is
done with the help of Amos 16.0 software, as a second pre-test to verify the
conceptualization of the selected constructs/indicators for each factor. After performing
CFA, unimportant and irrelevant questions have been excluded from the full version
questionnaire to get a final version of questionnaire. The final version questionnaire was
just a subset of full version questionnaire; that is why the first 160 responses have also
been used in further analysis of the study.
To examine the reliability of the empirical data, consistency analysis has been done on
the basis of Cronbachs Alpha method.
Keeping in view the objectives, this study implements structural equation modeling
(sometimes called path analysis), which is used to find multiple relationships of

33

dependent & independent variables (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson 2006). The
purpose of selecting an adequate sample size is to fulfill SEMs requirement for large
sample (Hair et al 2006 p.735). Results are estimated (derived) through partial least
square (PLS) approach, and also Amos, using a sample of 330 (160 from full version &
170 from final version questionnaire) respondents. The purpose of applying both
approaches (Amos & PLS) is to confirm the results and hence provide it more
credibility. Both of these approaches provided sufficient results that are used to fulfill
the purpose of this study.

3.8

Statistical Methods

This study deal with the measurement of many factors (Eight factors of innovation
characteristics & consumers' characteristics) through different variables/questions,
therefore multivariate analysis has been done through structural equation modeling
(SEM). Multivariate analyses are statistical techniques that simultaneously analyze
multiple measurements on individuals/objects under study. Hair et al (2006) defined it
as; any simultaneous analysis of two or more variables can be termed as multivariate
analysis (p. 626).
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical method that allows separate
relationships for each dependent variable set, and provide very efficient estimation
procedure for many and separate multiple regression equation that are estimated
simultaneously. It is described into two components; structural model & measurement
model, where structural model is a path model which relate/associate dependent with
independent variables (Eight factors as independent & consumers' resistance as
dependent variable in our case). The measurement model allows researcher to use
several variables/indicators (questions) to measure a single independent and/or
dependent variables (Hair et al 2006).
3.8.1

Factor analysis

There are two kinds of factor analysis available, exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis (Bhattacherjee, 2002). Exploratory factor analysis is data driven and is used to
explore theoretical structure. In exploratory factor analysis, researchers usually select
the number of factors after examining output from a principal components analysis (i.e.,
Eigen values are used to decide on a number of factors). EFA is often recommended
when researchers have no hypotheses about the nature of the underlying factor structure
of their measure (Kim & Mueller, 1978). Confirmatory factor analysis on the other
hand, is theory driven and provides a fit of the hypothesized factor structure to the
observed data. It is usually used by researchers to confirm the validity of factors and
variables constructed/chosen to measure those factors (Bryant et aI., 1999).
Confirmatory factor analysis has been chosen for performing factor analysis, as it best
suits the objectives of this study.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical tool/technique which is used to verify
the factor structure of a set of observed variables/constructs. It is also used to tests
whether a specified set of constructs is influencing responses in a predicted way
(Brown, 2006). CFA will allow us to test that there exist a good relationship between
observed variables and their underlying latent constructs. Knowledge from the
literature, theories, and models has been used to postulate the relationship pattern of our

34

factors to be measured by the measuring variables (questions). CFA is used as a pre-test

after collecting empirical data through pre-test questionnaires (full version), to test
whether there is significant relationship between the factors to measure and the
constructs (variables/questions) used for the measurement of those factors in
questionnaires. It is simply used to evaluate the contribution of each question in
measuring a particular factor, and also find how well the questions measure each factor
(Hair et al 2006). Results from the confirmatory factor analysis have been used to drop
out the constructs with less or no relationship with the factors.
3.8.2

Hypothesis testing

Following a structural equation modeling, the results are estimated with the help of
partial least square (PLS) Smart-PLS and then AMOS 16.0 software to test the
hypotheses. Looking at the value and signs of coefficients, T-values (t-statistics) has
been considered, following the rule of thumb (t-value >2 = significant), to accept or
reject the hypotheses.
3.8.2.1

Partial Least Square (PLS)

PLS is similar to using multiple regression analysis to find the relationships formulated
in a model. It is used to predict the linear conditional expectation relationship between
dependent and independent variables (Hahn et al., 2002). PLS is based on variance, is
distribution free, prediction oriented approach, and has been extensively applied in
marketing studies (Fornell & Cha 1994). It explicitly derives (estimates) the
values/scores of the (unobserved) latent variables (consumers and innovation
characteristics factors in our case) as weighted aggregates of their observed, manifest
variables (the questions in our case) (Wold, 1980). PLS is a robust technique, as it
provides solutions even when problems exist that may prevent a solution in using Amos
or LISREL approaches of structural equation modeling. It is very easy to handle a large
number of measured and or construct variables through PLS (Hair et al., 2006). One of
the major advantages of PLS is that, it is very useful in generating estimates even with
very small sample size. Software called SmartPLS is the most prevalent implementation
as a path model.
3.8.2.2

AMOS

AMOS is a powerful and graphical, easy-to-use structural equation modeling (SEM)

software. It creates much realistic models than if standard multivariate statistics or
multiple regression models. It is used to estimate, assess, and then present a model in an
intuitive path diagram to show hypothesized relationships among variables. It is very
useful for testing the validity of different theories on the basis of empirical data, which
is the prime objective of this study. AMOS is widely used for getting confirmative and
interpretive results, which can be generalized more because of its requirement for a
large number of observations (sample size). One of the disadvantages of AMOS is that,
it is very sensitive to sample size, and may only provide good results if the sample size
is very large.
3.8.2.3

Correlation

Correlation is a statistical tool, used to find the direction and strength of relationship
between variables/factors. Correlation provided us the type & direction of inter-

35

relationship and intensity of relationship among our factors. The values for correlations
are provided by both AMOS and SmartPLS. The values/results from both AMOS and
SmartPLS are found as almost the same (i.e. with very least differences), so results from
SmartPLS have been specifically followed and interpreted.

3.9

Trustworthiness of the Research

It is very important for all the researchers to develop a factor of trust on their research
study & its results, so that the readers believe on what has been studied and how/what
has been got in results. As this is a quantitative study, it is not difficult to retest the
results drawn, by providing the inputs, following the appropriate approach. All the
empirical data is saved in Excel (.xls) and SPSS (.sav) files, so it is easy to
replicate/retest the results. Being the authors of this study, we believe that the
trustworthiness of this study (being a quantitative one) is based on three factors;
Validity and reliability of empirical data, Sources of empirical data (including sampling
method), and the approach followed to derive results.
3.9.1

Validity & Reliability

As discussed in the previous chapter, many researchers have studied our hypothesized
factors and consumers' resistance, where instruments have been developed and applied
to measure these factors. To provide more validity & reliability to this study, we have
modified the same instruments (variable/questions) to measure the selected factors and
consumers' resistance. Although the instruments developed by different researchers
(presented in table 4.1) to measure the hypothesized factors and consumers' resistance,
has established good validity and reliability; but looking at the difference of perspective
it is important to test the validity and reliability of the factors and the variable constructs
for measuring these factors. Saunders et al. (2003) suggested that the pilot test of the
questionnaire is very useful to establish the content and face validity. Creswell (1994 p.
121) defines content validity as, it refers to whether items measure the content they
were intended to measure", and face validity is defined as, it refers to whether the
items appear to measure what the instrument purports to measure".
Reliability is to check the trustworthiness and unbiasedness of the empirical data,
following consistency techniques. In another way, reliability is defined as, the extent to
which a variable or a set of variables are consistent in what they are intended to
measure. It differs from validity in that it relates not to what should be measured, but
how it has been measured (Sekaran, 2003). Validity test has been done using
confirmatory factor analysis, while reliability has been done using consistency analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis refined our tool (questionnaire) for empirical data
collection, while consistency analysis provided us values that are believed as
reliable/consistent and unbiased.
The questionnaire we developed was aimed to measure different factors & consumers'
resistance, where some of factors are somehow opposite to each other e.g. self-efficacy
is somehow opposite to complexity and relative advantage is opposite to consumers'
resistance. So, to measure all the factors in an efficient way, the questions for measuring
different factors are arranged in a logical order. On this basis, we measured those factors
together which are (more or less) same, e.g. questions about measuring; relative

36

advantage, compatibility, self-efficacy, and motivation are put first, followed by

questions for measuring the rest of the factors. Consumers' resistance which proved a bit
sensitive factor in our first pre-test has been measured in such ways that the respondents
can provide their opinion where resistance can be measured indirectly. For measuring
consumers' resistance indirectly, we followed Mirella et al., (2009) and Szmigin and
Foxall (1998) studies about the concept of consumers' resistance.
3.9.2

Source of Empirical data

The sources of empirical data depend upon the population and sampling methods. As
discussed above (in 3.6), for this study, the most appropriate method of sampling is
found as convenience sampling. Although convenience sampling is a widely used
sampling method, but one of its major disadvantages is the possibilities of sampling
error, and the results may not be generalized confidently to the population of the study.
So, the results of this study cannot be confidently generalized to all the young potential
buyers of smartphones in Sweden. To minimize the sampling error (to some extent),
efforts are done (by making web-based questionnaires and utilizing community
websites) to get many responses from a wide geographical area. Another purpose of
making web-based questionnaire was also to deal with the problem of observer bias.
The questionnaire (web-link) has been emailed to potential respondents, so, we do not
know the situation when they have filled the questionnaire, either they filled it alone or
were together with some friends that may have biased their answers. Most of the
respondents were students, and hence we believe that all of them have good idea of how
to fill questionnaire (provide answers) that is unbiased.
3.9.3

Approach followed to derive results

For choosing the right and most appropriate approach (tool) of statistical analysis for
deriving results, all the available approaches are studied in detail and consulted with
two statistics teachers in Jonkoping International Business School. Based on the nature
of this study and the need for multivariate analysis, Structural Equation Modeling has
been implemented. In Structural Equation Modeling, two approaches AMOS and PLS
were available to derive results from the empirical data. Although the PLS approach
(through SmartPLS software) has been found as the most suitable (discussed in 3.8) but
we have also applied AMOS approach to verify the results. Almost same results have
been derived from both approaches, which confirm the credibility of the derived results
and the approach followed.

37

Empirical Findings

This chapter aims to present empirical findings, after performing preliminary analysis on empirical data.
The purpose of preliminary analysis is to improve the questionnaire (full version) by excluding the irrelevant
questions to make it fit for the required data collection. After collecting empirical data from both the full
version & final version questionnaires, the descriptive findings are presented.

4.1

Preliminary Analysis

4.1.1

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To evaluate the construct validity of the factors, factor analysis has been performed,
following a theory driven approach. The basic purpose of CFA is to find out those
variables/questions that measure different aspects of a same underlying factor and that
have less correlation with other variables of the same factors. It is very helpful in
choosing the right variable/questions for measuring an underlying factor.
A large sample size has been recommended by different researchers (DeCoster, J. 1998)
to perform CFA, where the minimum sample size required is 150 (Hair et al 2006,
p.662). The following table shows the factor loadings derived from Amos 16.0
(Structural Equation Modeling software) for CFA.

Factor Analysis of Pilot Questionnaire

Factors /
Latent
variables
Relative
Advantage

Q#

Variable
(Observed)

References

Corresponding question

Factors
Loading

Q1

More useful,
reliable and
convenient

Smartphones are more convenient,

reliable, and useful than normal mobile
phones.

0.86

Q2

More
integrated
Fashionable
& trendy
Good
Price/Quality
relationship

I.Brown et al,
2003; Taylor &
Todd, 1995;
Holak & lehmann,
1990
Yiu et al, 2007

Smartphone has good integration of

wide range of functions and services.
Smartphone are more fashionable,
stylish, and trendy.
The price/quality relationship is
acceptable in smartphone, as I can
enjoy other free services (e.g. e-mail,
voice-mail, MSN & Skype, word
processor) anywhere I want.
Smartphones bigger screen and full
keyboard, make different functions
easier to use.
Smartphones fit with my needs.

0.62

Smartphones fit with my lifestyle/

work-style.

0.92

Smartphones fits with my habits of

using cell phones.
Smartphone is a good complement to
the traditional mobile phones.
I know how to use smartphones.

0.82

Q3
Q4

Compatibility

Holak &
Lehmann 1990;
Yiu et al, 2007

Q5

Bigger screen
and full
keyboard

Jo, 2006

Q6

Compatible
with needs

Q7

Compatible
with
lifestyle/workstyle
Compatible
with habits
Complement

Holak &
Lehmann, 1990;
Yang, 2005
I.Brown et al,
2003; Taylor &
Todd, 1995

Q8
Q9
Self-Efficacy

Yang, 2005

Q10

Usage know
how

Moore &
Benbasat, 1991
He, Fu, & Li,
2006
I.Brown et al.,
2003; Compeau &
Higgins, 1995

38

0.59
0.84

0.64
0.50

0.66
0.63

Motivation

Q11

Confidence

Q12

Comfort

Q13

Independence

Q14

Q17

Intrinsic
motivation
Extrinsic
Motivation
Extrinsic
Motivation
Intentions

Q18

Convenient

Compeau and
Higgins, 1995;
Taylor & Todd,
1995
Lee Matthew et
al., 2007
Park and Chen,
2007
Lee Matthew et
al., 2007
Park and Chen,
2007
Lee & Yu, 1994

Q19

Low price

Lee & Yu, 1994

Q20

Secure

Q21

Durability

Change & Chen,

2004
Change & Chen,
2004

Q22

Preference

Q23

Concept /
tradition

Schwartz, 1992

Q24

Attitude
towards &
satisfaction
from existing
products
Usage
complexity

Karjaluoto et al.,
2002
Wang et al., 2008

Q15
Q16

Expectation
for better
products

Attitude
towards
existing
products

Complexity

Perceived
Risk

Q25
Q26

Require more
skills & mental
effort

Q27

Complex to
understand
functions

Q28

Maintenance

Q29

Performance
risk
Performance
risk

Q30

Q31

Financial risk

Q32

Security risk

Q33

Value/safety

Compeau and
Higgins, 1995;
I.Brown et al.,
2003
Hung et al., 2003

I.Brown et al 2003
Lee, Cheung,
Chen, 2007
I.Brown et al,
2003; Moore &
Benbasat, 1991;
He, Fu, & Li,
2006
Holak Lehmann,
1990
He, Fu, & Li,
2006
Holak & lehmann,
1990
Holak & lehmann,
1990
Holak & lehmann,
1990
I.Brown et al,
2003; Yang, 2005;
Chang & Chen,
2004
Holak & lehmann,

39

I am confident of understanding and

using smartphone.

0.88

I am comfortable with using technical

and advanced consumers products
(e.g. mp3 player, computer, digital
camera, PDA,etc ).
I would be able to operate
smartphone, even if I have never used
it before.

0.83

It is very exciting and entertaining to

use smartphone.
Using smartphone would be beneficial
to my work
I need smartphone for its new
features/functions.
I have intentions to use smartphone in
the near future.
I expect more convenient and advance
smartphones
I expect more affordable smartphones

0.80

0.67

0.45
0.86
0.90
0.58

I expect more secure smartphones.

0.55
0.85

I expect more durable smartphones.

0.87

I prefer compact and handy mobile

phones.
I do not like the idea of putting so
many functions together in a cell
phone.
I am quite satisfied and have favorable
attitude towards normal mobile
phones.

0.34

Smartphones may be complex to use.

0.75

Understanding and using smartphones

may require more skills and or mental
effort.

0.34

It may be difficult to understand

internet, gaming, mp3, and PDA
functions in smartphone.
It may be difficult to make updates &
put new software in smartphones.
Smartphone performance may not
meet my expectations.
I afraid of getting out of battery, while
I need to use smartphone for a long
time.
I fear of losing much money if I lost
my smartphone.
I fear of losing my personal
information and all the data, if I lost
my smartphone.

0.85

It is risky to spend relatively more

0.87

0.72
0.91

0.32
0.23
0.82
0.87
0.86

Consumers'
Resistance
(Dependent
variable/fac
tor)

Q34

risk
Durability risk

1990; Yang, 2005

Holak & lehmann,
1990; Chang &
Chen, 2004

Q35

Postponement

Q36

Postponement

Q37

Postponement

Q38
Q39

Opposition/
Wastage of
resources
Opposition

Szmigin & Foxall,

1998; Mirella et
al., 2009
Szmigin & Foxall,
1998
Szmigin & Foxall,
1998
Yang, 2005

Q40

Opposition

Q41

Opposition

Q42
Q43

Resistance to
change
Rejection

Q44

Rejection

Q45

Rejection

Szmigin & Foxall,

1998; Mirella et
al., 2009
Szmigin & Foxall,
1998
Szmigin & Foxall,
1998; Mirella et
al., 2009
Sheth, 1981
Szmigin & Foxall,
1998
Szmigin & Foxall,
1998; Mirella et
al., 2009
Mirella et al., 2009

money for buying a smartphone.

Smartphone can easily break if
dropped etc., and may stop
functioning.
I will wait to buy smartphone till it
proves beneficial for me.

0.49
0.20

I need to clarify some queries and

justify the reasons to buy smartphone.
I am waiting for the right time and
required capability to buy smartphone.
Buying smartphone maybe a wastage
of money.

0.74

I fear of wasting my time using

smartphones.

0.77

I need to get a solution for some of my

complaints and objections before I
buy smartphone.
Smartphone may decrease my
autonomy.

0.31

I fear of certain changes smartphone

may impose on me.
It is unlikely that I buy smartphone in
the near future.
Smartphone is not for me.

0.27

0.46
0.78

0.73

0.52
0.80

I dont need smartphones.

0.81
Table 4.1: Full version questionnaire & Factor Analysis

Results from factor analysis have provided factor loadings for each variable (question)
where factor loading above 0.70 is termed as acceptable so that each factor is explained
more by its constructed variable (question) than by error (Hair et al 2006 p.695, Fornell
& Larcker, 1981). Several variables (factor analysis table) have factor loading above
than 0.70 and prove as best measure of the corresponding factor. Following this,
variables/questions with factor loading above 0.70 are kept for final questionnaire. A
visual/graphical representation of all factors and measurement variables/questions has
been derived from Amos software and is provided in the Appendix.
4.1.2

Consistency (Reliability) Analysis

To find the reliability of the empirical data, consistency analysis has been done using
SPSS. Consistency analysis is used to find the internal consistency of the observed data,
and ranges from 0 to 1. Cronbach's Alpha () has been calculated to find the internal
consistency of the data. The closer Cronbach's alpha coefficient values to 1, the greater
the internal consistency of the variables. For deciding on the value of , George and
Mallery (2003) provide the following rules of thumb: > 0.9 Excellent, > 0.8
Good, > 0.7 Acceptable, > 0.6 Questionable, > 0.5 Poor, and < 0.5
Unacceptable (p. 231). Also, the value of alpha partially depends upon the number of
items (variables/questions) in the scale, it should be noted that the more the number of
variables/questions, the less will be the consistency.

40

Below is a table, presenting consistency of each factor, and also overall consistency of
the data, where most of the factors are found with good consistency.
Consistency Analysis using Cronbachs Alpha
Factors

Relative
Advantage

Compatibility

SelfEfficacy

Motivation

Cronbach
Aplha ()

0.816

0.859

0.744

0.850

Overall consistency ()

Expectations
for better
products
0.825

Attitude
towards ex.
products
0.736

Complexity

Risk

0.710

0.854

Resistance
(Depende
nt factor)
0.900

0.892

Table 4.2: Consistency Analysis

4.1.3

Variables Operationalization & Designing questionnaire

After performing the confirmatory factor analysis, we have been able to finalize our
questionnaire based on the value of factor loading. In the below table we have provided
all factors with their corresponding variable/question and the abbreviations (short
words) used for representing these variables/questions in further analysis.
Questionnaire
Factors

Relative
Advantage
Compatibility
Innovation
Characteristics

Complexity

Expectations
for better
products
Motivation
Attitude
towards
existing
products
Self-Efficacy
Innovation
Resistance

Questions

RELADV1

Smartphones are more convenient, reliable, and useful than

normal mobile phones.
The price/quality relationship is acceptable in smartphone, as I
can enjoy other free services (e.g. e-mail, voice-mail, MSN &
Skype, word processor) anywhere I want.
Smartphones fit with my lifestyle and work style.

RELADV2
COMP1
COMP2
CLEX1
CLEX2

Smartphones fit with my habits of using cell phones.

Smartphones may be complex to use.
It may be a bit difficult to understand internet, gaming, mp3,
and PDA functions in smartphones.
I afraid of getting out of battery, while I need to use smartphone
for a long time.
I fear of losing much money, my personal information and
other important data, if I lost/broke my smartphone.
It is risky to spend relatively more money for buying a
smartphone.
I expect more secure smartphones.

PRISK1

Perceived
Risk

Consumers'
Characteristics

Construct
Variables

PRISK2
PRISK3
EXBPR1
EXBPR2

I expect more durable smartphones.

MOTIV1
MOTIV2
MOTIV3
ATEXPR1
ATEXPR2

SE1
SE2

It would be very exciting and entertaining to use smartphone.

I need smartphone for its new features/functions.
I have intentions to use smartphone in the near future.
I do not like the idea of putting so many functions together in a
cell phone.
I am quite satisfied and have favorable attitude towards normal
mobile phones.

I am confident of understanding and using smartphone.

I am comfortable with using technical and advanced
consumers products (e.g. mp3 player, computer, digital
camera, PDA, etc).
I need to clarify some queries and justify the reason to buy
smartphone.
Buying smartphone maybe a wastage of money.

CR1
CR2

41

CR3
CR4
CR5
CR6

I fear of wasting my time using smartphones.

I have some complaints / objections against smartphones.
I dont need smartphone
Smartphone is not for me.

Table 4.3: Questionnaire

4.2

Descriptive Findings

The following table summarizes the descriptive findings from the collected empirical
data on the basis of full version and final version (160+170=330) 330
samples/observations.
Descriptive Statistics
Factors

Mean

Std. Deviation

RELADV

330

3.511

0.899

COMP

330

3.330

0.987

SE

330

3.983

0.740

MOTIV

330

3.541

0.862

EXPBPR

330

3.868

0.791

ATEXPR

330

3.118

0.912

CLEX

330

3.047

0.887

PRISK

330

3.515

0.856

CR

330

2.995

0.729

Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics

The descriptive analysis of the empirical data in the above table shows that most of the
respondents have very good self-efficacy of smartphones, which means that they are
confident of their ability/skill to use smartphones. Following this, they expect better
smartphones, most certainly because of the risk they perceive from smartphones which
has also a high value of 3.5. Most respondents have almost the same amount of
motivation and perceived relative advantage of smartphones. Slight resistance with low
value of standard deviation, has been found which can be called as consumers' neutral
response about resistance. This neutral resistance, according to Ellen et al (1991) is
consumers' less than enthusiastic response towards innovation, and is the most common
form of consumers' resistance.

42

Analysis

In this chapter, we have performed statistical analysis on empirical data. Two approaches (PLS &
AMOS) of Structural Equation Modeling have been used to get results. Based on these analyses, the
constructed hypotheses are tested, and research questions are answered.

5.1

Testing Hypotheses

After getting empirical data from the questionnaires (full version & final version
questionnaires), two different approaches (SmartPLS and AMOS) have been used to
estimate results for hypothesis testing and answer other research questions. Results with
very slight differences have been got from both approaches. The purpose of utilizing
both approaches is to confirm the accuracy of the result, and thus provide it more
credibility.
5.1.1

Partial Least Square

The following diagram shows the output results from SmartPLS. The values/scores with
the paths (arrows) from independent variables (consumers' and innovation
characteristics factors) to dependent variable (consumers' resistance) show the
regression coefficients. The regression coefficient is interpreted as the rate of change in
dependent variable (consumer resistance) as a function of change in independent
variables (factors).

Fig. 5.1: Empirical Model of Consumer' Resistance to Smartphones showing regression coefficients and
factor loadings derived from SmartPLS.

43

The below figure shows the T-values derived from bootstrapping (with 700 value of
sample for 330 cases/observations). Following the rule of thumb (George & Mallery,
2003), t-values below than two (t-value<2) are considered as non-significant and are
red-underlined.

Fig. 5.2: Factors Relationship with Consumers Resistance represented by t-values using SmartPLS
5.1.2

AMOS

The theoretical model (from Fig. 2.5) has been designed in AMOS, by making
innovation and consumers' characteristics factors as latent variables and the questions as
observed variables. After drawing the expected relationships and providing input
values, the following figure has been obtained as result. The values with each arrow
show the regression coefficients, where weak relationships are red-underlined. As
discussed in the methodology chapter, Amos is a hard approach and may sometimes
prevent solution for a problem which is not really a problem in other approaches like
PLS.

44

Fig. 5.3: Consumers' resistance model from AMOS

Most fortunately, we have obtained almost the same results from PLS (SmartPLS) and
AMOS approaches.
5.1.3

Results Discussion

Here, we have specifically followed PLS approach, as it is a robust method and

insensitive to the sample size. Below table presents findings from Smart-PLS, where
Beta values are the coefficients of regression and t-value are used to decide on the
significance. Expectedly, t-value with greater value of regression coefficients is found
higher. Following the rule of thumb, t-value greater than two (T>2) is considered as
significant, and are used for making decisions on the constructed hypotheses.

45

Factors

Hypothesis

Beta

T-Values

Significance

Relative Advantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Perceived Risk
Expectation for Better
Products
Motivation
Attitude towards
existing products
Self-Efficacy

H1
H2
H3
H4
H5

-0.171
-0.088
+0.191
+0.165
+0.042

3.064
1.422
5.046
3.487
1.292

Significant

H6
H7

-0.303
+0.129

4.812
3.086

Significant

H8

+0.023

0.718

Non-significant

Non-significant
Significant
Significant
Non-significant

Significant

Table 5.1: Results from SmartPLS

The above table and figures (fig. 5.1, 5.2, & 5.3) from SmartPLS and AMOS show that
all of the hypotheses, except H2 i.e. Compatibility, H5 i.e. Expectations for better
products, and H8 i.e. Self-Efficacy are supported. The support for H1 i.e. Relative
advantage is expected since past literature has consistently shown that relative
advantage has a significant and negative effects on consumers resistance (Ram 1987,
Ram & Sheth 1989, Lee & Yu, 1994) (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995). In other words
respondents, who feel that Smartphones are relatively more advantageous than normal
mobile phone, have expressed less resistance. This negative correlation between
consumers' resistance and relative advantage has also been confirmed by technology
acceptance model with factor of perceived usefulness (PU) (Park and Chen, 2007,
Amin, 2008), where PU is termed synonymously as relative advantage (Roberts and
Pick, 2004).
Similarly, the support for H3 i.e. Complexity, and H4 i.e. Perceived Risk are in line
with previous findings (Ram, 1987, Dunphy & Herbig, 1995, Yiu Chi et al., 2007,
Laukkanen et al., 2007) that have shown that complexity and perceived risk has positive
effects i.e. increase consumers resistance. So, respondents who feel that smartphones
are more complex and risky have shown more resistance.
Support for H6 i.e. Motivation with high beta value has shown motivation factor as the
most critical one in affecting consumers resistance negatively. As stated by MacInnis
and Moorman (1991), motivation is a goal directed arousal which drives consumers
needs. Respondents who have shown strong motivation to adopt smartphones have
expressed no or less resistance to it. In this regard, extrinsic motivation (MOTIV2) has
been found as important variable in measuring motivation towards adopting
smartphones.
Expectedly, consumers' favorable attitude towards normal mobile phones has been
found as positively correlated with their expression of resistance to smartphones. Which
show that respondents, who favor tradition, are unwilling to replace their old but still
functional mobile phones. Same relationship between consumers' favorable attitude and
their resistance to innovations, has been found in previous studies (Wang et al., 2008,
Karjaluoto et al., 2002).
The empirical data collected for this study, do not confirm H2 i.e. Compatibility, H5 i.e.
Expectation for better products, and H8 i.e. Self-efficacy. The relationship between

46

compatibility and resistance has been found as negative which is in line with previous
findings (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995, Tan & Teo, 2000, Saaksjarvi, 2003, Holak &
Lehmann, 1990), but is not significant to support our hypothesis. This shows that
respondents who express resistance do not really think that smartphones is not
compatible. On the other hand, respondents who expressed no or less resistance do not
really think that smartphones are much compatible.
Similarly, the factor expectations for better products has been found as positively
related with consumers' resistance which is also in line with previous findings (Lee &
Yu, 1994; Ram, 1987). The significance of this relationship (according to the empirical
data collected for this study) is very less to be accepted as significant. From our
empirical data we can elaborate on that; no matter respondents resist smartphones or
not, most of them have sufficient expectations for better smartphones.
The relation between self efficacy and consumers' resistance has been found as very less
and also non-significant, which is different from previous findings that respondents with
more self-efficacy express less resistance to innovation. In this case, self-efficacy has
been found as un-important. The name smartphone communicates and gives enough
confidence to the respondents about its usage friendliness, so in turn, most of the
respondents feel that they have sufficient self efficacy to use smartphones, no matter
they resist it or not.
Referring to the first research question, the below table mention (i) the causal
relationships between resistance and innovation characteristics factors, (ii) the causal
relationships between resistance and consumers' characteristics factors.

Innovation
Characteristics
Consumers'
Characteristics

Factors

Causal relationship
with consumer
resistance.

Score (Beta)

Relative Advantage
Complexity
Perceived Risk
Motivation
Attitude towards
existing products

Negative
Positive
Positive
Negative
Positive

-0.171
+0.191
+0.165
-0.303
+0.129

Table 5.2: Causal relationship between hypothesized factors and resistance to smartphones
Following the above table, we can state that there is a negative causal relationship
between consumers' resistance to smartphones and relative advantage of smartphones as
innovation characteristics factor. There is positive causal relationship between
consumers' resistance to smartphones and perceived risk, and also a positive causal
relationship between resistance to smartphones and complexity. So, increase in
perceived risk and complexity will increase consumers' resistance to smartphones.
On consumers' characteristics side, there is a negative causal relationship between
motivation and resistance to smartphones, while a positive causal relationship between
favorable attitude towards normal mobile phones and resistance to smartphones. Hence,
increase in motivation will decrease consumers' resistance to smartphone, and, increase

47

in favorable attitude towards normal mobile phones will increase consumers' resistance
to smartphones.
The hypothesized factors in the model of consumers' resistance represented almost 65%
(Coefficient of determination i.e. R2=0.649, see fig. 5.1) variation in consumers'
resistance that is caused by these factors. In other words, 65% variation in consumers'
resistance is explained (caused) by innovation and consumers' characteristics factors,
which indicates an acceptable goodness of fit of the model (McKelvey & Zavoina,
1975). The goodness of fit of a model indicates how well it fits a set of
observations/empirical data.
5.1.4

Regression Equation
CR= + 1+2+3+4+5+ 6+ 7+ 8 +
Where, CR = Consumers' Resistance
= Intercept
1 = Relative advantage
2 = Compatibility
3 = Complexity
4 = Perceived Risk

5 = Expectation for better products

6 = Motivation
7 = Attitude towards existing products
8 = Self-efficacy

and can be other factors affecting consumers' resistance.

CR = 0.17110.0882+0.1913+0.1654+0.04250.3036+0.1297+ 0.0238 +
The value with positive/negative signs are the coefficient from PLS, which e.g. can be
interpreted as, when motivation goes up by 1, CR goes down by 0.303 etc.
Referring the second research question motivation, complexity, relative advantage, and
perceived risk are found as the important factors (as per their order) that
affect/determine consumers' resistance to smartphones.

5.2

Factors Inter-relationship (Correlation)

To find the inter-relationship between the hypothesized factors, correlation has been
derived from SmartPLS. The following table shows the correlation of all the factors,
representing the direction and strength of inter-relationship between these factors.

48

ATEXPR

ATEXPR
CLEX
COMP
EXBPR
MOTIV
PRISK
RELADV
SE

1
0.510
-0.503
-0.151
-0.532
0.388
-0.543
-0.195

CLEX

COMP

EXBPR

1
-0.414
-0.141
-0.408
0.455
-0.445
-0.197

1
0.337
0.727
-0.531
0.713
0.210

1
0.284
-0.064
0.210
0.252

MOTIV

1
-0.454
0.731
0.278

PRISK

1
-0.501
-0.073

RELADV

1
0.142

SE

Table 5.3: Factors correlations

The correlations between the hypothesized factors have been found similar to the
previous findings (Holak & Lehmann, 1990; W. Robert, 1998).
Motivation has been found as positively correlated with relative advantage, selfefficacy, compatibility, and expectations for better products, while negatively correlated
with complexity, risk, and attitude towards existing products. Respondents who are
more motivated to adopt smartphones perceived it as relatively more advantageous,
compatible, and have good self-efficacy, while they perceive smartphones as less risky,
less complex, and have unfavorable attitude towards normal mobile phones.
Complexity is found as negatively correlated with compatibility, relative advantage,
self-efficacy, and expectation for better products. On the other hand, it is found as
positively correlated with perceived risk and attitude towards existing products.
Respondents who think smartphones are more complex, have less compatibility, relative
advantage, and self efficacy, while more perceived risk and favorable attitude towards
existing products (i.e. normal mobile phones).
Relative advantage is found as positively correlated with compatibility, self-efficacy,
and expectation for better products, while negatively correlated with risk and attitude
towards existing products. Respondents who perceive smartphones as relatively more
advantageous express more self-efficacy and compatibility, while perceiving
smartphone as less risky and have less or unfavorable attitude towards normal mobile
phones.
Perceived risk is found as negatively correlated with compatibility, and self-efficacy,
while positively correlated with attitude towards existing products. Respondents who
perceived smartphones as more risky, have express less compatibility and self-efficacy,
and have more favorable attitude towards existing products.

49

Conclusion

This chapter aims to conclude the analysis and findings, to specifically answer the research questions and
fulfill the objective of the study.
The hypothesized factors in the model of consumers' resistance represented almost 65%
(0.649, see fig. 5.1) variation in consumers' resistance that is caused by these factors. In
other words, 65% variation in consumers' resistance is explained (caused) by innovation
and consumers' characteristics factors, which indicates an acceptable goodness of fit of
the model.
Based on the research questions and purpose of the study, here we will conclude the
results of our analysis:
a.

(i) What are the causal relationships among innovation characteristic

factors and consumers' resistance to smartphones?

The empirical data supported all the hypotheses related to innovation characteristics,
except H2, i.e. Compatibility, and H5, i.e. expectation for better products. So our
empirical data could not confirm that; the lower the perceived compatibility of
smartphones, the higher the consumers' resistance, and the higher the expectation for
better smartphones, the higher the consumers' resistance.
Hypotheses H1, H3, and H4, are supported by the empirical data, which is in line with
the previous findings from different studies (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995; Park & Chen,
2007; Laukkanen et al., 2007, etc). Based on the hypotheses results, we can conclude
that, the lower the perceived relative advantage of Smart phones, the higher will be the
resistance. So, relative advantage and consumers' resistance are found to have negative
relationship, where consumers' resistance is the dependent factor, i.e. increase in
relative advantage causes consumers' resistance to decrease, and vice versa.
Supporting H3 and H4, it can be concluded that, the higher the levels of perceived risk
and complexity of Smart phones, the higher will be the resistance. So, perceived risk
and complexity have negative relationship with consumers' resistance, where
consumers' resistance is the dependent factor, i.e. increase in perceived risk and
complexity causes consumers' resistance to increase, and vice versa.
(ii) What are the causal relationships among consumers' characteristic
factors and consumers' resistance to smartphones?
In consumers' characteristics factors, our empirical data supported all the hypotheses
except H8, i.e. Self-efficacy. So the empirical data could not confirm that the lower the
consumers' self-efficacy of smartphones, the higher the consumers' resistance.
Hypotheses H6 and H7, are supported by the empirical data. One of basis of the
results/decision for H6, we can conclude that, the lower the consumers' motivation to
buy/adopt smartphones, the higher the consumers' resistance. So motivation and
consumers' resistance are found to have negative relationship, where consumers'
resistance is the dependent factor, i.e. increase in motivation causes consumers'
resistance to decrease, and vice versa. Supporting H7, we conclude that; the more
favorable/positive consumers' attitude towards normal mobile phones, the higher the

50

consumers' resistance. So attitude towards normal mobile phones and consumers'

resistance are found to have positive relationship, where consumers' resistance is the
dependent variable, i.e. increase in consumers' favorable attitude towards normal
mobile phones causes consumers' resistance to increase, and vice versa.
b. Which factors of consumers' and innovation characteristics mainly
affect/determine consumers' resistance to Smart phones?
Motivation, complexity, relative advantage, and perceived risk are found as the most
critical factors (intensive as per their order) which affect/determine consumer resistance
to smartphones. Where motivation has -0.303, complexity has +0.191, relative
advantage has -0.171, and perceived risk has +0.165 value of regression coefficient
(Beta), which can be interpreted as; when motivation goes up by 1, consumers'
resistance goes down by 0.303, when complexity goes up by 1, consumers'
resistance also goes up by 0.191 etc.
c. What is the inter-relationship among the innovation & consumers
characteristics factors?
Compatibility, Relative Advantage, and Motivation are found as strongly & positively
correlated factors. Secondly, perceived risk, complexity, and attitude towards existing
products are found as strongly & positively correlated (See table 5.4). However, the
correlation between the two groups compatibility, relative advantage, motivation and
perceived risk, complexity, attitude towards existing products has been found as
negative.

6.1

Suggestions for further research

Throughout this study, we found that innovation resistance has been called as very
important in the innovation literature, but relatively less research has been done in this
area. So, it would be valuable to do further research on innovation resistance from
individual and or organizational perspective. Also, it would be interesting to investigate,
how innovative companies are dealing with innovation and consumers' characteristics
factors, to overcome/decrease consumers' resistance.
Further research can be done, to analyze the model of consumers' resistance for other
innovative products and also services. Also, the model of consumers' resistance to
Smartphones can be extended and applied on empirical data, collected from other
geographical areas. As discussed in the sampling, we have used convenience sampling
method in this study where results cannot be generalized confidently. If accessible,
probability sampling method can be used in further study, so that results can be
confidently generalized to the study population.
AMOS and SmartPLS approaches used in this study are very useful for finding
relationships (between different variables/factors) formulated in a model. These
approaches can be used in further studies, to find the cause/affect relationships between
different variables in a model.

51

References

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived
Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies. Decision
Sciences (28:3), 557-582.
Aggarwal, P., Cha, T. & Wilemon, D. (1998). Barriers to the adoption of really-new
products and the role of surrogate buyers. The Journal of Consumer Marketing,
15, 358-371.
Alex Slawsby, Randy Giusto, Kevin Burden, Ross Sealfon, & Dave Linsalata, (2003).
Worldwide smart handheld devices forecast and analysis. IDC 20032007 (June
2003)
Amin, H. (2008). Factors affecting the intentions of customers in Malaysia to use
mobile phone credit cards. Management Research News, 31, 493-503.
Assink, M. (2006) Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 215-233.
Arnould, E., Price, L., & Zinkhan, G. (2004). Consumers (2nd edition). New York:
McGrawHill/ Irwin.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Kyu-Hyun, L. (1999). Consumer Resistance to, and Acceptance of,
Innovations. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 218-226.
Balachandra, R., & John H. Friar (1997). Factors for Success in R&D Projects and New
Product Innovation: A Contextual Framework. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 44 (August), 276287.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.
Psychological Review (84), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American
Psychologist (37:2), 122-147.
Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking in Dynamic Marketing in a
Changing World, R. S. Hancock, R.S., Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 389-398.
Barczak, G., Ellen Pam, S. & Pilling Bruce, K. (1997). Developing typologies of
consumer motives for use of technologically based banking services. Journal of
Business Research, 38, 131-139.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial
test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (I), 211-241.
Bhimani, A. (1996). Securing the Commercial Internet. Communications of the ACM
(39:6), 29-35.
Blackler, F., & Colin, B. (1985). Evaluation and the Impact of Information
Technologies on People in Organizations. Human Relalions 38 (3): 213-231.
Brod, Craig. (1982). Managing Techno-stress: Optimizing the Use of Computer
Technology. Personnel Journal 61 (October): 753-757.
Brown, I., Cajee, Z., Davies, D. & Stroebel, S. (2003) Cell phone banking: Predictors of
adoption in South Africa - An exploratory study. International Journal of
Information Management, 23, 381-394.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York:
Guilford Press.
Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J.L. and Sey, A. (2006). Mobile
Communication and Society: A Global Perspective, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.

52

Chang, Y. F. & Chen, C. S. (2005). Smart phone-the choice of client platform for
mobile commerce. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 27, 329-336.
Cherry, J. & Fraedrich, J. (2002). Perceived risk, moral philosophy and marketing
ethics: mediating influences on sales managers ethical decision-making.
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 12, 951-62.
Cho Seong, D. & Chang Dae, R. (2008). Salesperson's innovation resistance and job
satisfaction in intra-organizational diffusion of sales force automation
technologies: The case of South Korea. Industrial Marketing Management, 37,
841-841.
CNET Reviews (2009). CNET Smartphone reviews. Retrieved on 10 March 2009 from
http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphone-reviews/
Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information Technology Implementation
Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach. Management Science (36:2),
123-139.
Connor, O. & Colarelli, G. (1998). Market learning and radical innovation: A cross case
comparison of eight radical innovation projects. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 15, 151-166.
Constantiou, I., Damsgaard, J. & Knutsen, L. (2006). Exploring perceptions and use of
mobile services: user differences in an advancing market. International Journal
of Mobile Communications, Vol. 4 No. 3.
Compeau, D. & Higgins, C.A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: development of a
measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, June, 189-211.
Crawford, M.C. (1983). New Products Management, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
London: Sage Publications.
Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Todd, P. A. (1997). Individual Differences and Internet
Shopping
Attitudes
and
Intentions,
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/_crisp/Indiv_Shop.htmS.
Dahlin, K. & Behrens, D.M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and
measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, Vol. 34 No. 5, 717-37.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
22(14), 11111132.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3.
DeCoster, J. (1998). Overview of Factor Analysis. Retrieved <April, 15, 2009> from
http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html
Dickerson, M. D., & Gentry, J. W. (1983). Characteristics of Adopters and NonAdopters of Home Computers. Journal of Consumer Research (10), 225-234.
Dholakia, U.M. (2001). A motivational process model of product involvement and
consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12,
1340-60.
Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk
handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119134.
Dowling, Grahame R. (1986). Perceived Risk: The Concept and Its Measurement.
Psychology & Marketing, 3,193-210.
Dunphy, S. & Herbig, P. A. (1995). Acceptance of innovations: The customer is the
key! The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 6, 193-209.

53

Ellen, P. S. & Bearden, W. O. (1991). Resistance to technological innovations: An

examination of. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 297-308.
Fain, D. & Roberts, M.L. (1997). Technology vs. consumer behavior: the battle for the
financial services customer. Journal of Direct Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, 44-54.
Fang, X., Chan, S., Brzeinski, J. & Xu, S. (2005). Moderating effects of task type on
wireless technology acceptance. Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 22 No. 3, 123-57.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39-50.
Fornell C, Cha J. (1994). Partial least squares. In: Bagozzi RP, editor. Advanced
Methods of Marketing Research. Oxford, England: Blackwell Business, 5278.
Garcia, R., Bardhi, F. & Friedrich, C. (2007). Overcoming Consumer Resistance to
Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48, 82-82.
Garcia, R. & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology
and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 19, 110-132.
Gartner (2009). Press Release: Gartner Says Worldwide Smartphone Sales Reached Its
Lowest Growth Rate With 3.7 Per Cent Increase in Fourth Quarter of 2008.
Retrieved from: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=910112 on 13 March
2009.
Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T.S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion
research. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, 849-67.
Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T.S. (1989). Technology diffusion: an empirical test of
competitive effects. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, 35-49.
Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T.S. (1991). Innovative decision processes in Robertson,
T.S. & Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 316-48.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2004). Trust and TAM in online shopping:
An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Ghauri, P.N., & Gronhaug, K. (2005). Research Methods for Business Studies: A
Practical Guide. Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Gold, Bela. (1981). Technological Diffusion in Industry: Research Needs and
Shortcomings. The Journal of Industrial Economics 29 (3): 247-269.
Goldsmith, R.E., Hofacker, C.F., (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 19 (3), 209221.
Grabner-Kruter, S. & Faullant, R. (2008). Consumer acceptance of internet banking:
the influence of internet trust. International journal of bank marketing, 26, 483504.
Hahn, C., Johnson, M. D. & Herrmann, A. (2002). Capturing customer heterogeneity
using a finite mixture pls approach. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 54,
243-270.
Hair, J.F., Black C.K., Babin B.J., & Anderson R.E., (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th Edition), Pearson Education Inc. Newyork.
Han, S., Mustonen, P., Seppanen, M. & Kallio, M. (2006). Physicians' acceptance of
mobile communication technology: an exploratory study. International Journal
of Mobile Communications, Vol. 4 No. 2.

54

Harkke, V. (2006). Impacts of physicians usage of a mobile information system.

International Journal of Electronic Healthcare, Vol. 2 No. 4, 345-61.
He, F. & Peter, M. (2007). Decision factors for the adoption of an online Payment
system by customers. International Journal of E-Business Research.
He, Q., Duan, Y., Fu, Z. & Li, D. (2006). An Innovation Adoption Study of Online EPayment in Chinese Companies. Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations, 4, 48-69.
Heiskanen, E., Hyvnen, K., Niva, M., Pantzar, M., Timonen, P. & Varjonen, J. (2007).
User involvement in radical innovation: are consumers conservative? European
Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 489-509.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: Wiley.
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1986). Communicating Innovations: Convincing
Computer Phobics to Adopt Innovative Technologies. Advances in Consumer
Research (13), 419-422.
Hirschman, E.C., (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking and consumer creativity.
Journal of Consumer Research 7 (3), 283295.
Hirunyawipada, T. & Paswan, A. K. (2006). Consumer innovativeness and perceived
risk: implications for high technology product adoption. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 23, 182-199.
Holak, S. & Lehmann, D. (1990). Purchase Intentions and the Dimensions of
Innovation: An Exploratory Model. Product Innovation Management.
Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play online games? An extended TAM
with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41(3),
853-868.
Hurter, A. P., & Rubenstein, A. H. (1977). Market penetration by new innovations,
technological literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 197221.
Hussey, J. & Hussey, R. (1997). Business research : a practical guide for
undergraduate and postgraduate students. Basingstoke : Macmillan Business
Im, S., Bayus, B.L. & 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, 61-73.
Jacoby, J. & Kaplan, L.B. (1972). The components of perceived risk. in Venkatesan, M.
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference, Iowa City, 382-93.
John T. Gourville (2006). Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the
Psychology of New-Product Adoption. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, Issue
6.
Karjaluoto, H., Mattila, M. & Pento, T. (2002). Factors underlying attitude formation
towards online banking in Finland. The International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 20, 261-272.
Kelly, P. & Melvin, K. (1978). Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current
Knowledge. San Francisco: San Francisco Press Inc.
Kim, J.-O., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and
practical issues. Newbury Park: Sage.
Kim, Kyunngchul. (2005). A Study on Barriers in Activating Mobile Commerce:
Innovation Resistance Perspective. Hannam University, Korea.

55

Koivumaki, T., Ristola, A. & Kesti, M. (2006). Predicting consumer acceptance in

mobile services: empirical evidence from an experimental end user environment.
International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 4 No. 4.
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, 75-75.
Lapointe, L., Lamothe, L. & Fortin, J. (2002). The dynamics of IT adoption in a major
change process in healthcare delivery. System Sciences, 2002. HICSS.
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 19181926.
Lassar, W. M., Manolis, C. & Lassar, S. S. (2005). The relationship between consumer
innovativeness, personal characteristics, and online banking adoption. The
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23, 176-199.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Kivijrvi, M. & Laukkanen, P. (2007). Innovation
resistance among mature consumers. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24,
419-419.
Laukkanen, P., Sinkkonen, S. & Laukkanen, T. (2008). Consumer resistance to internet
banking: postponers, opponents and rejectors. International journal of bank
marketing, 26, 440-455.
Lee, & Yu. (1994). A Study on the Innovation Resistance of Consumers in Adoption
Process of New Product - Concentrated on Innovation Resistance Model.
Korean Management Review, Vol.23 (3): 217-249
Lee Matthew, K. O., Cheung Christy, M. K. & Chen, Z. (2007). Understanding user
acceptance of multimedia messaging services: An empirical study. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2066-2066.
Leonard, J.K. (2004). Critical success factors relation to healthcares adoption of new
technology: A guide to increasing the likelihood of increasing adoption.
Electronic healthcare vol.2 No. 4. 72-81.
Lvblad, H. (2003). Monk, Knight or Artist? The Archivist as a Straddler of a
Paradigm. Archival Science, vol 3, p. 131.
Luarn, P., & Lin, H. H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to
use mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 873-891.
Lunsford Dale, A. & Burnett Melissa, S. (1992). Marketing product innovations to the
elderly: understanding the barriers to adoption. The Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 9, 53-53.
Macinnis, D. J. & Moorman, C. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers'
motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand. Journal of Marketing, 55,
32-54.
Mahajan, V., Miller, E. & Wind, Y. (2000). Introduction. in Mahajan, V., Miller, E. and
Wind, Y. (Eds), New Product Diffusion Models, Springer, New York, NY, p. ix.
Martin, R. (2007). Innovation, Upheaval Rule Red Hot Smartphone Market.
InformationWeek, 32-33.
Mirella, K., Nick, L. & Wetzels, M. (2009). An exploration of consumer resistance to
innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology.
Maylor H., & Blackmon, K. (2005). Researching Business and Management. Palgrave
Macmillan.
McKelvey R.D., Zavoina W. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level
dependent variables. The Journal of mathematical sociology vol:4 nr:1 p.103

56

Midgley, D.F., Dowling, G.R. (1978). Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement.
Journal of Consumer Research 4 (4), 229242.
Midgley, F. David & Grahame R. Dowling, (1993). A Longitudinal Study of Product
Form Innovation: The Interaction Between Predispositions and Social Messages.
Journal of Consumer Research 19 (March): 611-625.
Mike Elgan (2007). Its time we stopped talking about smartphones, available at
http://www.techworld.com/mobility/features/index.cfm?featureid=3204
(accessed at 15 April 2009)
Mohr, Jakki. (2001). Marketing of High-Technology Products and Innovations. (1st
edition) Prentice Hall.
Monk, A., Hassenzahl, M., Blythe, M. & Reed, D. (2002). Funology: designing
enjoyment. Proceedings of Conference on Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computer Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 924-5.
Murdock, Gene W. & Lori Frunz. (1983). Habit and Perceived Risk as Factors in the
Resistance to Use of ATMs. Journal of Retail Banking 5 (2): 20-29.
Nanda, P., Bos, J., Kramer, K.-L., Hay, C. & Ignacz, J. (2008). Effect of smartphone
aesthetic design on users emotional reaction: An empirical study. The TQM
Journal.
Nguyen, V., Hao, S. & Szajman, J. (2008). WiiKey: An Innovative Smartphone Based
Wi-Fi Application. International Multi-symposiums on Computer and
Computational Sciences, 91-97.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Thorbjrnsen, H. (2005). Explaining intention to use
mobile chat services: Moderating effects of gender. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 22, 5, 247256.
O'Connor, E., Charles, P., Robert, L., & David H. (1990). Implementing New
Technology: Managemcnt Issues and Opportunities. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research I (I): 68- 89.
Ostlund, L. E. (1974). Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of Innovativeness.
Journal of Consumer Research (1), 23-29.
Park, C. & Banwari, M. (1985). A Theory of Involvement in Consumer Behavior:
Problems and Issues. Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1, Sheth, J.N. ed.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 201-31.
Park, Y. & Chen, J. V. (2007). Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of
smartphone. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107, 1349-1365.
Pijpers, G.G.M., Bemelmans, T.M.A., Heemstra, F.J., & van Montfort, K.A.G.M.
(2001). Senior executives use of information technology. Information and
Software Technology 43, 959971
Ram, S. (1987). A model of innovation resistance. Advances in Consumer Research. 14,
208-213.
Ram, S. (1989). Successful innovation using strategies to reduce consumer resistanceAn empirical test. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6, 20-34.
Ram, S. & Sheth, N.J. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovation: The marketing
problem and its solution. The Journal of Consumer Marketing. 6(2). 5-14
Reichertz, Jo (2004). A Companion to Qualitative Research. London, England. Saga
Publications Ltd
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing Research in
Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. London:
Sage

57

Richardson, R. (2003). CSI/FBI computer crime and security survey. Computer Security
Institute. Available from: http://www.gocsi.com/forms/fbi/pdf.jhtml.
Roberts, G. K. & Pick, J. B. (2004). Technology factors in corporate adoption of mobile
cell phones: a case study analysis. System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the
37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 287-296.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovation: A cross
cultural approach. New York: The Free Press.
Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, 56-61.
Saaksjarvi, M. (2003). Consumer adoption of technological innovations. European
Journal of Innovation Management.
Salerno. Lynn M. (1985). What Happened to the Computer Revolution? Harvard
Business Review (November,December): 129- 138.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business
Students (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Schwartz, S.H. & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and
structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 26, January, 92116.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Method for Business: A skill building approach, 4th
Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shimp, T.A. & Bearden, W.O. (1982). Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on
consumers risk perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, June, 3846.
Szmigin, I. & Foxall, G. (1998). Three forms of innovation resistance: The case of retail
payment methods. Technovation, 18, 459-468.
Tan, M. & Teo, T. (2000). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Internet Banking.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems.
Tornatzky, L. & Klein, K. (1982). Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption
Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings. IEEE Transactions on
engineering management.
Tushman, M.L. & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and
organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, 439-65.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46 (2), 186204.
Venkatraman, Meera P. (1991). The Impact of Innovativeness and Innovation Type on
Adoption. Journal of Retailing 67 (1): 51-67.
Wang, G., Dou, W. & Zhou, N. (2008). Consumption attitudes and adoption of new
consumer products: a contingency approach. European Journal of Marketing,
42, 238-254.
Wang, Y.-S., Wang, Y.-M., Lin, H.-H. & Tang Tzung, I. (2003). Determinants of user
acceptance of Internet banking: an empirical study. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 14, 501-519.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (1969) New Product Adoption in Industrial Markets: A Framework
for Analysis, Journal of Marketing (33:3), 35-39.
Welman, J., C., Kreuger, S., J. & Mitchell, B., C. (2005). Research Methodology (3rd
ed.). Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.

58

Widerberg, K. (2002). Kvalitativ Forskning i Praktiken. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Wiklund, J. (1998). Small Firm Growth and Performance: Entrepreneurship and
Beyond, JIBS Dissertation Series No. 003, Ark Tryckaren, Jnkping
Williamson, K. (2002). Research Methods for Students, Academics and Professionals.
2nd edition. Centre for Information Studies: Wagga Wagga.
Woodside, A.G. & Biemans, W.G. (2005). Modeling innovation, manufacturing,
diffusion, and adoption/rejection processes. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 7, 380-93.
Wold H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is
scarce: Theory and application of partial least squares. In: Kmenta J, Ramsey
JB, editors. Evaluation of Econometric Models. New York: Academic Press, 47
73.
Wrenn, B., Loudon, D. & Stevens, R. (2001). Marketing Research Text and Cases, 1st
edition, Routledge.
W. Robert, J. (1998). Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new
products. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 136-150.
Yang, K. C. C. (2005). Exploring factors affecting the adoption of mobile commerce in
Singapore. Telematics and Informatics, 22, 257-277.
Yiu Chi, S., Grant, K. & Edgar, D. (2007). Factors affecting the adoption of Internet
Banking in Hong Kong-implications for the banking sector. International
Journal of Information Management, 27, 336-336.
Yuan, Li. (2006). Smartphones Aim at New Markets. The Wall Street Journal,
November 2, B5.
Yuan, M.J. (2005) Emergence of the Smartphone. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2005/08/23/whatissmartphone.html?
page=1.
Zaltman, G. & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for Planned Change. Wiley, New York,
NY.
Zeithaml, VA & Gilly, M.C. (1987) Characteristics affecting the acceptance of retailing
technologies: a comparison of elderly and non-elderly consumers. Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 63 No.1, 49-68.
Zelos Group, (2004). Defining the Market for Full-Feature Handsets, (January) Zelos
Group.
Zikmund, W.G. (2000) Business Research Methods. Orlando: The Dryden Press.

59

8
8.1

Appendix
Pre-test Questionnaire

On Page = 67

8.2 Graphical Representation of factors and measuring

variables
8.2.1

Relative Advantage

8.2.2

Compatibility

60

8.2.3

Complexity

8.2.4

Perceived Risk

61

8.2.5

Expectation for better Products

8.2.6

Motivation

62

8.2.7

Attitude towards Existing Products

8.2.8

Self-Efficacy

63

8.2.9

Consumer Resistance

64

8.3

Factor Loadings from the final empirical data

ATEXPR

CLEX

COMP

CR

EXBPR

MOTIV

PRISK

RELADV

SE

ATEXPR1

0.845

0.432

-0.395

0.48

-0.124

-0.433

0.28

-0.427 -0.249

ATEXPR2

0.863

0.44

-0.463

0.508

-0.133

-0.474

0.38

-0.499 -0.089

CLEX1

0.486

0.856

-0.394

0.459

-0.182

-0.388

0.42

-0.39 -0.191

CLEX2

0.408

0.886

-0.332

0.512

-0.07

-0.328

0.376

-0.387 -0.154

COMP1

-0.438

-0.363

0.920

-0.59

0.311

0.682

-0.492

0.652

0.173

COMP2

-0.488

-0.4

0.921

-0.594

0.311

0.656

-0.486

0.661

0.214

CR1

0.393

0.363

-0.402

0.675

0.102

-0.437

0.523

-0.466 -0.061

CR2

0.471

0.479

-0.538

0.781

-0.21

-0.563

0.455

-0.534 -0.149

CR3

0.395

0.388

-0.36

0.700

-0.098

-0.411

0.395

-0.448 -0.146

CR4

0.347

0.412

-0.394

0.668

-0.03

-0.423

0.443

-0.442 -0.046

CR5

0.477

0.397

-0.552

0.779

-0.191

-0.604

0.33

-0.559 -0.116

CR6

0.477

0.443

-0.576

0.833

-0.227

-0.617

0.414

-0.568 -0.209

EXPBPR1

-0.154

-0.154

0.328

-0.169

0.939

0.281

-0.057

0.204

0.223

EXPBPR2

-0.099

-0.077

0.254

-0.098

0.807

0.205

-0.056

0.157

0.228

MOTIV1

-0.467

-0.336

0.565

-0.567

0.229

0.801

-0.378

0.631

0.297

MOTIV2

-0.405

-0.306

0.647

-0.547

0.16

0.835

-0.382

0.605

0.17

MOTIV3

-0.468

-0.385

0.626

-0.637

0.317

0.888

-0.388

0.614

0.233

PRISK1

0.275

0.329

-0.349

0.454

-0.027

-0.311

0.799

-0.382

0.035

PRISK2

0.307

0.365

-0.462

0.402

-0.033

-0.373

0.815

-0.389 -0.081

PRISK3

0.37

0.423

-0.497

0.533

-0.089

-0.432

0.857

-0.46 -0.126

RELADV1

-0.449

-0.412

0.667

-0.645

0.222

0.687

-0.485

0.911

0.133

RELADV2

-0.533

-0.388

0.614

-0.579

0.153

0.626

-0.413

0.888

0.121

SE1

-0.189

-0.176

0.217

-0.169

0.245

0.268

-0.084

0.139

0.919

SE2

-0.127

-0.153

0.115

-0.099

0.164

0.182

-0.025

0.089

0.739

8.4

Appendix 2: Final Questionnaire

65

Dear respondent, this questionnaire is aimed to get your personal opinion about smartphones, and will only be used in
analysis of our master thesis. Your real opinions are very important for us. This questionnaire can also be filled online,
following the link: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/126929/smartphone Thank you very much.
Smartphone is a device that provides cell phone, E-Mail/Internet, PDA (personal digital assistant) functionality with full
keyboard and relatively big screen.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Smartphones are more convenient, reliable, and useful than normal mobile
phones.
The price/quality relationship is acceptable in smartphone, as I can enjoy
other free services (e.g. e-mail, voice-mail, MSN & Skype, word
processor) anywhere I want.
Smartphones fit with my lifestyle and work style.

Smartphones fit with my habits of using cell phones.

I am confident of understanding and using smartphone.

I am comfortable with using technical and advanced consumers products

(e.g. mp3 player, computer, digital camera, PDA, etc).
It would be very exciting and entertaining to use smartphone.

I need smartphone for its new features/functions.

I have intentions to use smartphone in the near future.

I expect more secure smartphones.

I expect more durable smartphones.

I do not like the idea of putting so many functions together in a cell phone.

I am quite satisfied and have favorable attitude towards normal mobile

phones.
Smartphones may be complex to use.

It may be a bit difficult to understand internet, gaming, mp3, and PDA

functions in smartphones.
I afraid of getting out of battery, while I need to use smartphone for a long
time.
I fear of losing much money, my personal information and other important
data, if I lost/broke my smartphone.

It is risky to spend relatively more money for buying a smartphone.

I need to clarify some queries and justify the reason to buy smartphone.

Buying smartphone maybe a wastage of money.

I fear of wasting my time using smartphones.

I have some complaints / objections against smartphones.

I dont need smartphone

Smartphone is not for me.

Questions

Thank you.

66

Dear respondent, this questionnaire is aimed to get your personal opinion about smartphones, and will only be used in
analysis of our master thesis. Your real opinions are very important for us. This questionnaire can also be filled online,
following the link: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/126929/smartphone Thank you very much.
Smartphone is a device that provides cell phone, E-Mail/Internet, PDA (personal digital assistant) functionality with full
keyboard and relatively big screen.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Smartphones are more convenient, reliable, and useful than normal

mobile phones.
Smartphone has good integration of wide range of functions and
services.

Smartphone are more fashionable, stylish, and trendy.

The price/quality relationship is acceptable in smartphone, as I can

enjoy other free services (e.g. e-mail, voice-mail, MSN & Skype,
word processor) anywhere I want.

Smartphones bigger screen and full keyboard make different

functions easier to use.

Smartphones fit with my needs.

Smartphones fit with my lifestyle and work style.

Smartphones fit with my habits of using cell phones.

Smartphone is a good complement to the traditional mobile phones.

I know how to use smartphones.

I am confident of understanding and using smartphone.

I am comfortable with using technical and advanced consumers

products (e.g. mp3 player, computer, digital camera, PDA, etc).
I would be able to use smartphone, even if I have never used it
before.

It would be very exciting and entertaining to use smartphone.

Using smartphone would be beneficial to my work

I need smartphone for its new features/functions.

I have intentions to use smartphone in the near future.

I expect more convenient and advance smartphones

I expect more affordable smartphones

I expect more secure smartphones.

I expect more durable smartphones.

Questions

Page Turn Over

67

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

I do not like the idea of putting so many functions together in a

cell phone.

I am quite satisfied and have favorable attitude towards normal

mobile phones.
Smartphones may be complex to use.

Understanding and using smartphones may require more skills and

or mental effort.
It may be a bit difficult to understand internet, gaming, mp3, and
PDA functions in smartphones.
It may be difficult to make updates & put new software in
smartphones.

Smartphone performance may not meet my expectations.

I afraid of getting out of battery, while I need to use smartphone

for a long time.
I fear of losing much money if I lost/broke my smartphone.

I fear of losing my personal information and other important data,

if I lost my smartphone.

It is risky to spend relatively more money for buying a

smartphone.

Smartphone can easily break if dropped etc., and may stop

functioning.

I will wait to buy smartphone till it proves beneficial for me.

I need to clarify some queries and justify the reason to buy

smartphone.
I am waiting for the right time and required capability to buy
smartphone.
Buying smartphone maybe a wastage of money.

I fear of wasting my time using smartphones.

Smartphone may decrease my autonomy.

I need to get a solution for some of my complaints / objections

before I buy smartphone.
I fear of certain changes smartphone may impose on me.

It is unlikely that I buy smartphone in the near future.

I dont need smartphone

Smartphone is not for me.

Questions

I prefer compact and handy mobile phones.

Thank you.
68