Journal of Product & Brand Management

Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation

Richard L. Flight Giles D'Souza Arthur W. Allaway
Article information:
To cite this document:
Richard L. Flight Giles D'Souza Arthur W. Allaway, (2011),"Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model
validation", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 343 - 355
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111157874
Downloaded on: 28 November 2016, At: 22:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1916 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Innovation adoption attributes: a review and synthesis of research findings", European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 327-348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2012-0083
(2003),"Consumer adoption of technological innovations", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 90-100
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060310475246

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:463963 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Characteristics-based innovation adoption:
scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight
Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA, and
Giles D’Souza and Arthur W. Allaway
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to develop a measurement scale that encompasses a wide array of product characteristics. In addition, a
comprehensive model is developed and tested illustrating the relationship among product characteristics and with adoption.
Design/methodology/approach – Utilizing 628 respondents, a measurement scale is developed and a structural equation model is tested through a
multi-stage series of surveys. The scope of the research is consumer durable products.
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)

Findings – This paper is successful in developing a 43-item scale that measures 15 unique innovation characteristics. This scale is then used to test a
second order model illustrating the relationships innovation characteristics have with each other and ultimately innovation adoption.
Research limitations/implications – The major limitation this research suffers from is its lack of variety in products under analysis. For the four
consumer durable products studied, the research finds significant results. However, these findings would have greater impact if they reflected a broader
array of products and product classes.
Originality/value – To date there have been very few attempts to model and test in an exhaustive fashion the role innovation characteristics play
during the adoption process. This current research advances Holak and Lehmann and empirically tests first and second order characteristics within the
context of a structural equation model.

Keywords Innovation, Scale development, Product characteristics, Adoption, Diffusion, Product development

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived
to be new by an individual. It does not matter if the
innovation is objectively new measured by a lapse in time, but
rather its perceived newness to the potential adopter (Rogers,
2003, p. 12). In order for consumers to make an adoption
decision they evaluate information about its characteristics.
Historically, these characteristics have included trialability,
compatibility, relative advantage, observability and
complexity (Rogers, 1962), each of which either accelerates
or impedes the diffusion of a new innovation through a
market. More recently, perceived risk has added to the
original five as an important characteristic negatively
associated with innovation adoption (Bauer, 1960; Ostlund,
1974).
Research contributions from disciplines as disparate as
sociology and geography to industrial economics and
consumer behavior have developed different variations off of
these basic innovation characteristics to explore the flow of
information, ideas, practices, products, and services within
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
20/5 (2011) 343– 355
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421111157874]
and across cultures and markets (Gatignon and Robertson,
1985). For example, Tornatzky and Klein (1982) identify over
thirty different ways to describe an innovation from 75
different sources. Åstebro and Michela (2005) employ cluster
analysis to organize 37 criteria used in evaluating firm-level
innovation. There has been significant overlap of terms and
meanings in these studies. As a result, the body of knowledge
focusing on innovation diffusion has lacked cohesion in its
definition of the characteristics that make something
innovative. Our research seeks to synthesize this large body
of literature and, using accepted processes of scale
development, develop a single structure that captures the
most important constructs in the new-product development
and adoption literature. This structure allows the specification
of a model with which to estimate relationships between
innovation characteristics and other aspects of the innovation
adoption and diffusion literature (individual-centered
characteristics, diffusion context, and so on).
In order to specify models or find relationships with
external constructs an innovation must be measured based on
the qualities it is perceived to possess. Therefore, the
development of a multi-dimensional scale describing the
characteristics of product innovations provides a concrete step
towards Rogers’ call for “analyzing the perceived properties of
innovations and how these properties affect the rate of
adoption [as they] can be valuable in predicting the reactions
of people to an innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 219). Prior
research suggests that the adoption of an innovation is
preceded by how an individual perceives an innovation.
Moore and Benbasat (1991) stress the importance of
innovation characteristics by suggesting that individual
behavior is conditioned on how attributes are perceived. As

343
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway
a result, the ability to measure consumer perceptions of
innovation characteristics is expected to have a significant
impact on the ability to predict its eventual success in the
marketplace. In light of this, the second outcome of this paper
is to develop and test an extended model relating innovation
characteristics and the eventual behavioral outcome of
adoption.
The contributions of this paper for the product and
marketing management literature include the development
and validation of a comprehensive measurement scale of
innovation characteristics, followed by the construction and
testing of a second order innovation characteristic-adoption
model which builds upon earlier work (e.g. Holak and
Lehmann, 1990) and advances the modeling of these
constructs. The following section provides the theoretical
backdrop of this rich domain, laying the foundation for
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
measurement and model development.
2. Background and hypothesis generation
The seminal literature, attributed largely to Everett Rogers
(1958, 1962), outlines five primary characteristics of an
innovation which accelerate or retard its adoption by a
marketplace: relative advantage, complexity, compatibility,
trialability, and observability. Later, Bauer (1960) and
Ostlund (1974) add a sixth major dimension, perceived risk.
Additional studies have continued to examine the role that
these and other characteristics play in the adoption process.
Examples of innovation characteristics studied in this
literature include brand identity, clarity of results, initial
and continuing cost, ease of operation, flexibility,
importance to user, mechanical attraction, pervasiveness,
profitability, radicalness, reliability, saving of time, and
utility, to name a few. Those characteristics that appear
most frequently are shown in Table I along with the
researchers studying them.
Given the plethora of innovation descriptors it is reasonable
to suggest that there is a great deal of conceptual overlap
among characteristics. This research first draws together
similar concepts into a set of second order constructs that
employ the most commonly identified attributes described in
Table I. We then propose four broad higher order constructs:
information, relative advantage, compatibility, and risk/
complexity.
2.1 The information construct
Characteristics that enable or facilitate the flow of information
to potential adopters make up this construct. Derived from
the observability, trialability, and communicability
characteristics of previous research, this construct reflects
informational gathering sources that lead to a higher order of
abstraction. The relevance of this construct is based on the
notion that information transferred through internal
communication channels (e.g. social networking and word
of mouth), along with external communication channels
(e.g. advertising and public relations), provides potential
adopters with a range of information regarding the benefits
and use of the innovation.
Trialability refers to the opportunity consumers have to use
and try the innovation out or experiment with it on a limited
basis. This notion also is referred to as divisibility, or the
ability to divide the good and use part of it without destroying
the capabilities of what is not used (Holak and Lehmann,
344
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355
1990). Triabability, like observability, helps reduce consumer
uncertainty about product use. This is especially true for
earlier adopters since they have no precedents to follow when
they adopt (Gross, 1942; Ryan and Gross, 1943).
Observability refers to how visible an innovation is as it is
being used by previous adopters. Observation is a very useful
and powerful mechanism to communicate new-product
information to potential adopters. Non-adopters who are
able to see the innovation being used can overcome perceptual
hurdles that may otherwise hold them back from adopting the
innovation. Information provided by observation helps
potential adopters increase their confidence in the ability to
make the innovation work for them (Tornatzky and Klein,
1982; Venkatraman, 1991; Holak, 1988).
Communicability is emphasized in the mass-
communication media, and exists if the benefits of the
innovation can easily be explained to potential adopters via
mass communication. Communicability is present if the
innovation requires little advertising to sell, if it can be easily
described to others, or if it is easy to explain why using this
product is beneficial (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982):
H1a. Trialability is positively related to the information
construct.
H1b. Observability is positively related to the information
construct.
H1c. Communicability is positively related to the
information construct.
2.2 The compatibility construct
Innovation compatibility refers to how well the innovation fits
into the adopter’s personal life and social structure. It is the
degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent
with existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential
adopters (Rogers, 2003). If compatible, the innovation fits
closely with an individual’s life situation and may be
compatible on two sub-dimensions: personal and social. In
addition to personal and social compatibility, this broader
construct also includes social advantage and volition. If an
innovation is perceived by potential consumers as fitting into
their existing habits and lifestyle then it is compatible on a
personal level. The personal compatibility sub-dimension
deals with a person’s regular routines. If the innovation
requires one to break habit, or begin a new routine, then it
lacks personal compatibility (Rogers, 2003). Social
compatibility refers to how well the innovation fits into the
consumer’s social structure. Compatibility exists if an
innovation is congruent with the social expectations of the
adopter. Social expectations require that people of the same
reference class behave and participate in roughly homogenous
ways. As such, a new innovation that allows this is socially
compatible (Aggarwal et al., 1998; Atuahene-Gime, 1995).
Social advantage refers to an individual’s motivation to seek
status through using or owning the innovation. For certain
innovations, such as new clothing fashions, the social prestige
that the innovation conveys to its adopter is almost the sole
benefit the adopter receives. Ironically, when other members
of the social system adopt the same items, such as clothing,
the prestige once held by the initial users may become lost
(Rogers, 2003, p. 230).
Finally, volition, or “voluntariness,” is defined as the degree
to which use of the innovation is perceived as being voluntary
or of free will (Moore and Benbasat, 1991). When used in
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation Journal of Product & Brand Management
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355

Table I Innovation characteristics by literature

Innovation characteristic
Relative advantage (attribute and economic)
Complexity (in-use and in-design)
Trialability
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
Representative works
Agarwal and Prasad (1997), Åstebro and Michela (2005), Boyd and Mason (1999), Calantone and
Cooper (1981), Cestre and Darmon (1998), Cooper (1979), Fliegel and Kivlin (1966), Henard and
Szymanski (2001), Herbig and Day (1992), Holak (1985), Holak (1988), Holak et al. (1987), Holak and
Lehmann (1990), Indrakoses (2003), More (1982), Rogers (1962), Shimp and Bearden (1982), Venkatesh
et al. (2003), Venkatraman (1991), Wejnert (2002)
Boyd and Mason (1999), Calantone and Cooper (1981), Cestre and Darmon (1998), Cooper (1979),
Fliegel and Kivlin (1966), Herbig and Day (1992), Holak (1985), Holak (1988), Holak and Lehmann
(1990), Indrakoses (2003), Labay and Kinnear (1981), Ostlund (1974), Rogers (1962), Shimp and
Bearden (1982), Wejnert (2002)
Agarwal and Prasad (1997), Cestre and Darmon (1998), Fliegel and Kivlin (1966), Herbig and Day
(1992), Hoeffler (2003), Holak (1985), Holak (1988), Holak and Lehmann (1990), Indrakoses (2003),
More (1982), Rogers (1962), Shimp and Bearden (1982), Venkatesh et al. (2003), Venkatraman (1991)

Observability and communicability Agarwal and Prasad (1997), Åstebro and Michela (2005), Calantone and Cooper (1981), Cestre and
Darmon (1998), Fliegel and Kivlin (1966), Herbig and Day (1992), Holak (1985), Holak (1988), More
(1982), Rogers (1962), Shimp and Bearden (1982), Venkatesh et al. (2003), Venkatraman (1991)
Compatibility (social and personal) Aggarwal et al. (1998), Åstebro and Michela (2005), Cestre and Darmon (1998), Fliegel and Kivlin
(1966), Henard and Szymanski (2001), Herbig and Day (1992), Holak (1985), Holak (1988), Holak and
Lehmann (1990), More (1982), Rogers (1962), Shimp and Bearden (1982), Venkatesh et al. (2003),
Venkatraman (1991)
Social advantage Fliegel and Kivlin (1966), Shimp and Bearden (1982), Venkatesh et al. (2003)
Risk (product and class) Agarwal and Prasad (1997), Aggarwal et al. (1998), Bauer (1960), Boyd and Mason (1999), Cestre and
Darmon (1998), Fliegel and Kivlin (1966), Herbig and Day (1992), Holak (1985), Holak (1988), Holak
et al. (1987), Holak and Lehmann (1990), Rogers (1962), Tornatzky and Klein (1982), Venkatraman
(1991), Wejnert (2002)
Volition Agarwal and Prasad (1997), Gatignon and Robertson (1985), Gatignon (1986), Marquis (1969), Moore
and Benbasat (1991), More (1982), Shimp and Bearden (1982), Venkatesh et al. (2003)
Discontinuity Atuahene-Gime (1995), Calantone and Cooper (1981), Cooper (1979), Garcia and Calantone (2002),
Goldenberg et al. (2001), Heany (1983), Hoeffler (2003), Wejnert (2002)
Customization Boyd and Mason (1999), Calantone and Cooper (1981), Cooper (1979), Herbig and Day (1992)
Note: Please note that this table is not an exhaustive but rather a representative list

prior research this dimension is most prevalent in
organizational or employment related contexts. Often,
employees are encouraged or even mandated to adopt a new
technology or innovation. In these cases, the individual lacks
the volition of choice in making the adoption decision. In a
non-organizational context, one might also feel obligated to
adopt an innovation from peer pressure or group expectation.
In this sense, social compatibility, social advantages, and
volition are linked, especially when friends, family, or co-
workers would expect adoption of the innovation. To this end
one may feel that the innovation is a “must own” because of
external pressures:
H2a. Personal compatibility is positively related to the
compatibility construct.
H2b. Social compatibility is positively related to the
compatibility construct.
H2c. Social advantage is positively related to the
compatibility construct.
H2d. Volition is negatively related to the compatibility
construct.
2.3 The relative advantage construct
The relative advantage construct is designed to reflect
consumer perceptions that all or certain of the attributes
and qualities of the innovation can bring incremental value to
the adopter compared to currently available alternatives.
Relative advantage refers to the degree in which a potential
adopter will gain or benefit from the adoption of a new
innovation. This dimension, commonly found in the adoption
literature, is often cited as the most significant in terms of the
rate of adoption.
Relative advantage based on attributes and performance
exists if a product has superior physical or technical attributes.
These attribute-based advantages provide significant
improvements over previous innovations making it unique
and superior at meeting a specific need (Rogers, 2003).
Economic advantage includes the initial cost of the item, as
well as cost savings that might be realized if the new
technology is less expensive to operate than the old one
(Rogers, 2003, p. 230). Fliegel and Kivlin (1966) describe
economic advantage as a perceived ability for the innovation
to operate with greater efficiency.

345
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway
Customizability provides potential adopters the ability to
modify product features in order to maximize received
benefits. Such a feature provides an advantage over prior and
existing technologies in the sense that if gives adopters control
to create the product they most desire (Boyd and Mason,
1999; Calantone and Cooper, 1981; Herbig and Day, 1992).
Finally, anticipated product performance also contributes
to the evaluation of a product’s perceived benefits.
Performance expectations lead to favorable product
evaluations and elevated hope for a new innovation and its
performance relative to the current technology it is replacing:
H3a. Relative advantage by attribute is positively related to
the Relative advantage construct.
H3b. Relative economic advantage is positively related to the
Relative advantage construct.
H3c. Customizability in-use is positively related to the
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
Relative advantage construct.
H3d. Product performance is positively related to the
Relative advantage construct.
2.4 The risk and complexity construct
The risk and complexity construct is derived from the
characteristics that help the potential adopter estimate the
likelihood or probability that the innovation will fail to satisfy
the potential adopter’s needs or wants. The construct is
derived from the characteristics that bring to the potential
adopter bewilderment or doubt relating to the innovation.
The innovation-decision process may be described as an
information-seeking and information-processing activity
where individuals wish to estimate the likelihood that the
innovation will fail (Rogers, 2003, p. 232). As such, risk has
been shown to slow the rate of innovation acceptance (Sheth,
1968, Ostlund, 1974, Shoemaker and Shoaf, 1975).
Complexity leads to the subjective interpretation of risk
(Dowling and Staelin, 1994), and refers to the level of
conceptual and technical depth the innovation possesses. It is
the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to
understand and use. This dimension has been found in prior
research to be negatively related to adoption likelihood.
Complexity can be broken down in complexity in use, and
technical or design complexity. Complexity in-use refers to
the ease in which users derive value from the innovation,
while design complexity deals with internal components that
ultimately create the value used (Holak, 1988; Shimp and
Bearden, 1982; Wejnert, 2002; Calantone and Cooper,
1981).
Category, or global risk, is also considered an important
aspect in new product evaluations. Here, the adoption of a
single version or generation of technology may not in itself be
perceived as risky, but rather risk is perceived for any adoption
within the product category. Product class risk is often
described in terms of negative health factors or legal issues
associated with its use, thus causing potential adopters
concern.
The final element of the higher order construct is the idea
of product discontinuity. Innovation is often characterized by
how massive or how minor its impact is on the social system.
Discontinuous innovations, as they diffuse, cause significant
behavioral change across society. Examples are cellular
telephones and laptop computers. Others serve only to
make minor, incremental changes in consumer behavior
across adopters. This continuum from very radical to very
346
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355
minor has been represented many ways in the literature (see,
Garcia and Calantone, 2002, p. 117, for review).
Discontinuous innovations, although they can be hugely
successful in time, require greater effort in learning by
consumers, possess higher perceived risk in anticipated
performance, and require greater change in technical
infrastructure (Aggarwal et al., 1998). This typically leads to
higher perceived risk and slower rates of adoption, especially
when information about the product or its performance is
insufficient:
H4a. Complexity-in-use is positively related to the risk and
complexity construct.
H4b. Complexity-in-design is positively related to the risk
and complexity construct
H4c. Product category risk is positively related to the risk
and complexity construct.
H4d. Discontinuity is positively related to the risk and
complexity construct.
2.5 Primary and secondary innovation characteristics
While the literature has generated dozens of potential
characteristics to describe a new innovation, few studies
have developed models that have measured the relationships
among characteristics and the ultimate adoption decision.
Holak and Lehmann (1990) provide the earliest such
empirical work and serves as a guide for this research.
The notion that innovations have characteristics is very old.
In fact, philosophers of the seventeenth century including
Descartes, Galileo and Locke discussed the idea that objects
have at least two functional levels of interpretation: primary
and secondary (Downs and Mohr, 1976). Primary attributes
of an object relate to traits that can be undeniably agreed
upon by anyone who sees it. These characteristics are
universally accepted as its traits. Primary characteristics are
described by Tornatzky and Klein (1982, p. 28) as “inherent
to the innovation of technology and invariant across settings
and organizations [. . .]” Conversely, secondary characteristics
are those that are perceived uniquely across individual
adopters or segments of consumers, reflecting heterogeneity
in the population. Secondary characteristics are interpreted by
individuals in ways that satisfies their view of the object
(Downs and Mohr, 1976; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982;
Damanpour and Schneider, 2008).
Given this two-step evaluation process, researchers have
sought to construct a framework to describe the role that
primary characteristics play in forming the perception of
secondary characteristics, which in-turn lead to an adoption
decision (Holak and Lehmann, 1990). In our research, we
propose that the information construct described earlier
serves the role of a primary characteristic. That is, its
interpretation is likely to be invariant across the population of
potential adopters, which serves to communicate information
leading to interpretations of the compatibility, relative
advantage, and risk constructs (see Figure 1).
Holak and Lehmann (1990) report that communicability is
positively related to compatibility and relative advantage.
They argue that familiarity with the innovation as a result of
information search provides potential adopters with greater
confidence that the innovation may fit into their existing
lifestyle both personally and socially. In addition, innovations
with greater relative advantage are likely to be talked about
more, so information regarding feature benefits (and
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway
Figure 1 Characteristic-based model of innovation adoption
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
subsequent advantages) is likely to be more accessible to
potential adopters:
H6. Information is positively related to compatibility.
H7. Information is positively related to relative advantage.
To further emphasize the positive effects that information has
on the resulting adoption behavior, it is also theorized that
information and perceived risk are inversely related. By virtue
of the concepts that make up the Information construct
(trialability, observability and communicability), increased
availability and flow of information helps to dispel
misconceptions and fear over potential product problems.
That is, as innovation information becomes available,
potential adopters can use this information to re-assess and
mentally overcome potential negative consequences or risk
associated with the innovation (Ostlund, 1974):
H8. Information is negatively related to risk and
complexity.
Mediating information and adoption are the constructs of
compatibility and relative advantage, each of which has been
shown to affect purchase intention directly. In considering
compatibility, Holak and Lehmann (1990) defend this
linkage, citing a potential adopter’s general resistance to
change. Thus, innovations that do not complement current
lifestyles and social habits are likely to necessitate behavioral
modifications in order to be adopted. Furthermore, in a
technology acceptance model context (Davis, 1989),
Karahanna et al. (2006) also find support for the linkage
between compatibility and adoption.
Relative advantage is also hypothesized to be positively
related to purchase intention. If substantial advantages are
perceived between a new technology and its replacement,
347
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355
adoption is more likely to take place (Holak and Lehmann,
1990; Rogers, 2003):
H9. Compatibility is positively related adoption.
H10. Relative advantage is positively related to adoption.
Finally, risk and uncertainty in innovation performance have
been shown to retard the rate of adoption, as Rogers (1962)
seminal work suggests (Ostlund, 1974; Holak and Lehmann,
1990). Potential adopters must evaluate the uncertainty of
receiving future innovation benefits. Therefore, they tend to
discount the value of the innovation by some amount relative
to the uncertainty they perceive. If too much risk exists, and
such risk overcomes the perceived benefits of the innovation,
then a positive adoption decision is unlikely (Kahneman and
Tversky, 1979):
H11. Risk is negatively related to adoption.
3. Methodology
We follow previous templates for scale development work
(e.g. Churchill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988;
Netemeyer et al., 2003). First, an extensive review of the
literature across various fields such as sociology, marketing,
and engineering, was conducted to identify the full set of
innovation characteristics that exist within the context of
consumer durable product-markets. These were categorized
into the constructs of relative advantage, discontinuity,
perceived risk, compatibility, volition, complexity,
observability, and trialability.
In creating a multi-item scale, one’s objective is to get as
close to the true construct’s measure as possible, while
diminishing specificity and measurement error. Starting with
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway
an overabundance of items gives the researcher the greatest
opportunity to achieve this objective. As such, an exhaustive
list of 122 items was initially developed in an effort to derive
measures of the common innovation characteristics used in
previous research. Each item was reviewed (stage 1; see Table
II for data collection stages) for potential problems through
informal and formal interviews with researchers familiar with
this literature following prior scale development work (Tian
et al., 2001; Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1996; Bearden
et al., 1989). As a result 14 items were eliminated due to
redundant, ambiguous, leading or other faulty issues,
providing a revised set of 108 items.
Retained items were then formally screened (stage 2) based
on perceived relevance to their intended construct as a way to
establish content validity. If items were thought to be a poor
fit relative to their intended construct then they were either
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
modified or eliminated. To screen the items 53 undergraduate
students were recruited from junior-level marketing research
classes. The students rated each item on how well it fit the
stated definition of a innovation characteristic it was intended
to measure. To determine if an item would be retained a cut-
off was established based on item mean and variance such
that items that were clearly non-representative were dropped
from consideration. To elaborate further, items that had a
mean response below the construct composite mean were
scrutinized further. Likewise, items that had a variance
greater than the average variance of construct items were also
put aside for further scrutiny. Each of these items was then
assessed and either dropped or reworded. As a result 21 items
were removed, leaving 87 items for subsequent empirical
assessments of reliability and validity.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (stage 3) was performed
among the general population of undergraduate students of a
regional university in the southeast US. The initial collection of
data required respondents (n ¼ 106) to carefully consider one
randomly assigned product concept (a new disposable 35 mm
camera, a new personal digital assistant (PDA), a new low-
carbohydrate pizza, or a new rubberized casual wear sandal).
Product descriptions were brief and neutral in tone following
Armstrong and Overton (1971) as well as Holak and Lehmann
(1990). Respondents then completed an online measurement
instrument consisting of five-point (disagree-agree) Likert
scales concerning the new product they had just read about.
To perform the EFA squared multiple correlations were
used to estimate prior communalities and factors were
extracted using an oblique rotation (PROMAX) performed
in SPSS 16.0. The reason an oblique rotation was chosen is
because it assumes that each factor being measured will have
at least some shared variance. An examination of the scree
plot, as well as application of the Kaiser rule
(eigenvalues . 1) was used to guide the initial number of
factors (Hatcher, 1994). Items were then carefully eliminated
if they failed to meet the minimum factor loading of 0.50 or
Table II Data collection stages
Stage Purpose n Initial items
1 Judged evaluation 5 122
2 Item face validity screen 53 108
3 Exploratory factor analysis 147 87
4 Confirmatory factor analysis 383 43
348
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355
cross loaded at levels greater than 0.40. The data collected
suggested that several, but not all, of the latent constructs
could be measured with the existing set of items. As a result
factors that satisfied minimum statistical validity were
retained. Based on their loadings, these factors were named
relative social advantage, relative advantage by attribute,
relative economic advantage, discontinuity, perceived product
risk; product class risk, customizability, complexity in design,
complexity in use, and trialability.
Since scale development work requires continuous
assessment and modification of scale items, reworded items
relating to four constructs not demonstrating internal
consistency (social compatibility, observability (Churchill,
1979), communicability, and volition) were reassessed using a
new sample of respondents (n ¼ 41). This additional data
produced a further refined set of items resulting in 43 items
that were retained for measurement confirmation (see Table
III for items and EFA factor loadings and reliabilities).
Scale reliability was assessed by calculating coefficient alpha
(Cronbach, 1951) and bivariate correlations for scales of less
than three items (see Table III). Generally, an acceptable level
of alpha for scale reliability during early stages of development
is 0.70 or greater (Churchill, 1979; Nunnally, 1978), which
these data exceed. The average alpha for all scales was 0.80,
while for two item scales the average correlation was 0.66.
In all, 15 unique constructs were statistically identified
during this exploratory stage. The final stage of the scale
development process was devoted to assessing the internal
validity and the nomological validity of the scale. The scale
retained from exploratory factor analysis was subjected to
confirmatory factor analysis.
4. Results
Scale validation and model fit tests were performed on data
drawn from a broad sample of consumers. Scale items identified
earlier were used with a more generalized population sample
than that used for initial item development. In addition, this
data collection used three entirely different products, all within
the consumer electronics product category (a digital camera, a
MP3 player, and a Blue-Ray DVD player).
Respondents (n ¼ 383) for this collection of data were
recruited from three major universities in different regions of
the country (the South, the Mid-south, and the Pacific
Northwest), and an online panel recruited from a national
marketing research firm. The online panel was restricted to
respondents above 40 years of age, thus raising the average
age of the total sample to 30 years (with 55 percent female,
and non-students accounting for 16 percent of the sample).
Each subject was randomly assigned one product description
to read and was asked to respond to the survey instrument
based on the product they had just read about. The
consumers in the sample were within the target market of
likely buyers of each of the new products. The scale from the
Retained items Average sample age (years)
108 –
87 23
43 25
43 30
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation Journal of Product & Brand Management
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355

Table III Innovation characteristics: scale item EFA and CFA path coefficients
CFA
EFA factor (AVE) * path
Construct and items (a, r) loading coefficients
Observability (a 5 0.84) (0.59)
1. I can observe this product being used by others 0.98 0.76
2. If I adopted this product others could see me using it 0.98 0.77
3. It would be common to see this product in use by others 0.77 0.81

Communicability (r 5 0.68) (0.72)

1. This product would be easy to describe in an advertisement 0.87 0.94
2. It would be easy to describe this product to others 0.75 0.75
Trialability (r 5 0.71) (1.00)
1. This product can be tested with without making a purchase commitment 0.91 1.32
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)

2. This product can be tried before purchase 0.92 0.53

Personal compatibility (a 5 0.80) (0.60)

1. This product compliments other products currently owned by the potential adopter 0.84 0.82
2. This product is in-keeping with potential adopter’s self image 0.73 0.83
3. This product fits into potential adopter’s existing lifestyle or social class 0.68 0.67
Social compatibility (a 5 0.85) (0.59)
1. Using this product is in is socially acceptable 0.86 0.72
2. Adopting this product would be met with approval by friends and family 0.89 0.76
3. Many of my friends would want to own/use this product 0.98 0.83

Social advantage (a 5 0.87) (0.65)

1. It would be socially prestigious to own/use this product 0.79 0.86
2. This product has great social reward associated with its use 0.91 0.76
3. People would be impressed with my use of this product 0.78 0.82
4. Using this product would impress my friends 0.70 0.77

Volition (a 2 0.82) (0.63)

1. Using this product is in is socially acceptable 0.96 0.74
2. Adopting this product would be met with approval by friends and family 0.83 0.89
3. Many of my friends would want to own/use this product 0.63 0.75

Relative advantage by attribute (a 5 0.70) (0.50)

1. This product is more comfortable to use than others that meet similar needs 0.68 0.79
2. This product is available in more locations than others that meet similar needs 0.67 0.62
3. This product is more reliable than others that meet similar needs 0.77 0.71
Relative economic advantage (a 5 0.75) (0.52)
1. This product saves potential adopter’s time in use 0.78 0.80
2. This product allows potential adopters to reduce costs 0.61 0.68
3. This product has a favorable price/quality relationship over other products that meet similar needs 0.55 0.68
Customizability (r 5 0.59) (0.63)
1. This product can be customized based on potential adopter specifications 0.91 0.84
2. This product offers unique features specified by potential adopters 0.86 0.74
Product performance (a 5 0.86) (0.74)
1. This product will do what it claims it will do 0.89 0.80
2. This product will perform reliably and consistently 0.93 0.93
3. I am confident that this product will perform as expected 0.83 0.84
Complexity-in-use (a 5 0.78) (0.47)
1. The operator’s manual is lengthy for this product 0.71 0.86
2. This product takes a considerable amount of time to learn how to use 0.85 0.64
3. Special skills are required for installation/assembly 0.67 0.60
4. The product requires a high general level of knowledge to use 0.71 0.60
(continued)

349
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway
Table III
Construct and items (a, r)
Complexity-in-design (r 5 0.70)
1. This is considered a high technology product
2. This product is mechanically and technically complex
Category risk (a 5 0.72)
1. Products like this one have potential legal issues associated with its use
2. Products like this one have negative health factors associated with its use
3. This product is in a class of products that have a high degree of risk
Discontinuity (a 5 0.79)
1. This product contains a new, cutting edge technology
2. This product is new to the world or industry
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
3. This product provides radically new product benefits or features
Note: *AVE ¼ average variance extracted
pilot study was extended from a five point Likert Scale to a
seven point Likert-type scale for this data collection effort.
The data was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) by simultaneously assessing all 15 constructs using
LISREL 8.8. Under confirmatory factor analysis, a
measurement model is used to evaluate the relationship that
the observed variables have with a latent variable that cannot
be observed directly. Such indicator variables are said to
reflect changes in the unobserved variable of interest.
Convergent validity was also established, as all items for
each construct loaded significantly (t-values . 1.96, p (0.05))
with large pattern coefficients (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).
The standardized path coefficients for each item and its
respective latent variable are shown in Table III. The
measurement model showed good fit with the non-normed
fit index (NNFI) ¼ 0.94, the normed fit index (NFI) ¼ 0.91,
the comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.95, and incremental fit
index (IFI) ¼ 0.95. The model’s root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) was 0.071 and the ratio of x2/df is
which is well below 5 suggested by Tate (1998). No model
modifications were made to increase model fit, implying that
the measurement model has adequate fit.
Measuring the average variance extracted indicates the
degree to which scale items measure one common factor,
underscoring a scale’s convergent validity while also
demonstrating discriminant validity. The average variance
extracted (AVE) shown in Table III was acceptable in most of
the fifteen constructs with a range of 0.47 to 1.00 (Fornell and
Larker, 1981). In addition to sufficient construct validity,
average variance extracted also provided evidence of
discrimination among the factors. Further illustration of
discriminant validity appears in Table IV which reports the
correlation between factors, which range in absolute value
from 0.001 to 0.533
To further examine the dynamics of the scale, items within
each construct were averaged and the means were compared
by product and by adoption (see Table V), which was
measured by a single-item dichotomous scale. Individuals that
have adopted a technology would be expected to rate
favorable characteristics higher and unfavorable ones lower
than those that had not adopted. All 15 measured constructs
demonstrate this pattern and 12 of the 15 do so at a
350
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355
CFA
EFA factor (AVE) * path
loading coefficients
(0.63)
0.76 0.80
0.83 0.79
(0.47)
0.88 0.82
0.61 0.61
0.72 0.61
(0.58)
0.88 0.89
0.80 0.67
0.80 0.71
significance level of 0.01 or better. This provides additional
evidence of face validity, as the data corresponds with a priori
data assumptions and external validity as the measures appear
to grasp the concept of their intended construct.
The theoretical model described in Figure 1 was then
estimated using LISREL 8.8. The structural model
demonstrates an acceptable as evidenced by traditional fit
indices – the non-normed fit index (NNFI) ¼ 0.90, goodness
fit index (GFI) ¼ 0.90, the comparative fit index
(CFI) ¼ 0.91, and the incremental fit index (IFI) ¼ 0.91. In
addition, the model’s root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) is 0.083 with a x2/df ratio of 3.76,
again well below 5 (Tate, 1998) (Table VI).
5. Discussion, limitations and future research
Holak and Lehmann (1990) develop and test a model which
uses six innovation characteristics. To do so they independently
run a series of least-squared regressions measuring inter-item
relationships with each proposed dependent variable. This
study seeks to develop and test an expanded model which
includes fifteen innovation characteristics using simultaneously
equation modeling. The results indicate general support for the
proposed model. Each path hypothesized is supported at the
p , 0.05 significance level or better with the exception of the
proposed negative relationship between the information and
risk/complexity constructs. This path has a negative coefficient
but is not strong enough to indicate a significant linkage
(b ¼ 20.03). This finding is somewhat unexpected as prior
research has shown support for a negative relationship between
both communicability and trialability with perceived risk
(Holak and Lehmann, 1990). Given this result we may
consider risk and complexity to be primary characteristics
rather than secondary.
While one hypothesized path is not supported, we are
encouraged to find each of the first order paths is supported,
indicating that characteristics may indeed be grouped
together and that these groupings fit an intricate
nomological network. One important finding from this
research thus supports the idea that an innovation may have
a great many facets, yet when measured together these facets
appear to coalesce into a unified order.
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation Journal of Product & Brand Management
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355

Table IV Inter-factor correlation table

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16
V1 1.000
V2 0.175 1.000
V3 0.058 0.165 1.000
V4 0.278 20.047 2 0.064 1.000
V5 0.166 0.187 0.272 0.331 1.000
V6 0.007 20.098 0.042 0.004 20.007 1.000
V7 20.039 20.410 2 0.046 0.038 20.056 0.221 1.000
V8 0.019 20.326 2 0.083 2 0.078 20.238 0.140 0.437 1.000
V9 0.040 20.361 0.110 2 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.359 0.232 1.000
V10 20.031 20.307 0.073 2 0.145 0.033 0.124 0.349 0.138 0.469 1.000
V11 0.159 20.223 0.163 2 0.045 0.123 0.075 0.251 0.108 0.366 0.448 1.000
V12 0.269 20.221 0.044 0.138 0.217 0.093 0.238 0.157 0.281 0.188 0.212 1.000
V13 0.052 2 0.125 0.039 0.054 0.171 0.399 0.257 0.342 0.385 0.248 0.509 1.000
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)

20.375
V14 20.001 20.327 2 0.112 0.022 20.046 0.131 0.533 0.437 0.409 0.344 0.250 0.459 0.574 1.000
V15 0.027 20.299 2 0.025 2 0.009 0.119 0.101 0.288 0.157 0.427 0.408 0.262 0.480 0.615 0.433 1.000
V16 20.204 20.303 2 0.063 2 0.079 20.191 0.117 0.328 0.212 0.319 0.302 0.126 0.055 0.316 0.331 0.310 1.000
Notes: V1 – Discontinuity; V2 – Product performance risk; V3 – Category risk; V4 – Complexity-in-design; V5 – Complexity-in-use; V6 – Trialability; V7 –
Observability; V8 – Communicability; V9 – Relative advantage by attribute; V10 – Relative economic advantage; V11 – Customizability; V12 – Relative social
advantage; V13 – Personal compatibility; V14 – Social compatibility; V15 – Volition; V16 – Adoption

Table V Descriptive data by product

Adopted digital Adopted MP3
camera player Adopted DVD player Total
No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Observability 4.41 4.68 * 4.37 4.74 * 3.77 4.75 * 4.11 4.71 *
Trialability 3.10 3.47 * 3.26 3.51 3.25 3.50 3.21 3.50 *
Communicability 4.19 4.50 * 3.96 4.24 * 3.84 4.50 3.97 4.47 *
Complexity in use 2.75 2.38 * 3.13 2.75 * 2.95 3.31 2.94 2.61 *
Complexity in design 3.58 3.57 3.82 3.92 4.13 3.25 * 3.90 3.74
Product risk 3.84 4.18 * 3.34 4.16 * 3.61 4.67 * 3.71 4.19 *
Category risk 2.67 2.68 2.30 1.89 * 2.37 3.75 * 2.43 2.40
Discontinuity 3.52 3.17 * 3.24 3.15 3.89 4.33 3.60 3.20 *
Relative attribute advantage 3.30 3.56 * 3.23 3.58 * 2.91 4.25 * 3.11 3.60 *
Relative economic advantage 3.25 4.30 3.30 3.64 * 2.61 4.83 * 2.98 3.53 *
Customizability 3.57 4.64 3.47 3.42 3.05 4.63 * 3.31 3.56 *
Relative social advantage 3.07 3.08 3.07 3.35 * 3.24 4.19 * 3.14 3.26
Personal compatibility 3.26 3.77 * 3.32 4.03 * 3.18 4.17 * 3.24 3.92 *
Social compatibility 3.92 4.43 * 3.99 4.5 * 3.69 4.67 * 3.84 4.47 *
Volition 2.36 2.85 * 2.62 3.40 * 2.40 3.25 2.45 3.15 *
Sample size 73 52 75 61 119 4 267 117
Average age in years 29.92 25.49 * 31.18 32.38 29.90 24.67 30.07 29.09
Percent female 59 50 54 61 50 75 53 57
Note: *Signifies a significant difference between adopters and non-adopters at the p , 0.01

Innovation characteristics have received steady attention
across numerous disciplines since their early development in
rural sociology (Feder, 1982; Fliegel and Kivlin, 1966;
Rogers, 1958). However, despite more than 50 years of
research on the role that innovation characteristics play in the
adoption process, the lack of consistently used measures of
innovation characteristics has continued to hamper progress.
The two-fold purpose of this research has been to develop a
comprehensive and valid measurement scale of perceived
innovation characteristics, and to use this scale to develop an
expanded model tying innovation characteristics to adoption.
To this end items were developed, screened, and confirmed,
demonstrating consistency and reliability across a broad
sample of consumers. By showing discriminant validity within
each measured sub-trait much greater detail is available to
potential product developers and researchers.
Additionally, the scale is used to test a higher order model
of innovation characteristics and adoption in order to

351
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation Journal of Product & Brand Management
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355

Table VI Hypothesis results innovation characteristics with a view towards modeling and
testing theories of perceived innovation characteristics and
Path coefficient t-stat Significance adoption in order to provide practitioners the benefit of
H1a 0.26 4.15 , 0.001 knowing which characteristics most influence the innovation’s
H1b 0.84 4.40 , 0.001 diffusion curve. It is then possible to better understand how
H1c 0.52 4.32 , 0.001 perceived innovation characteristics influence the actual
H2a 0.82 14.82 , 0.001 diffusion of different types of products and services.
Knowing this information, practitioners could make better
H2b 0.72 12.85 , 0.001
estimates of the diffusion path of an innovation and thus make
H2c 0.61 11.05 , 0.001
improved marketing decisions.
H2d 0.72 * 12.91 , 0.001
Future research also needs to examine and test various
H3a 0.69 10.40 , 0.001
models of perceived innovation characteristics and their effect
H3b 0.67 10.32 , 0.001 on adoption. Besides intentions and adoption, other
H3c 0.51 7.65 , 0.001 consequences can also be examined including
H3d 0.55 9.12 , 0.001 innovativeness, usage, satisfaction and repurchase. Possible
H4a 0.68 4.38 , 0.001 antecedents of perceived innovation characteristics that bear
H4b 0.45 4.50 , 0.001
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)

investigation include involvement, materialism, technological-

H4c 0.26 3.30 , 0.001 readiness, and socio-demographic variables among others. We
H4d 0.37 3.38 , 0.001 contend that research at the individual level in the domain of
H5 0.79 4.07 , 0.001 innovation adoption has not kept pace with the aggregate
H6 0.82 3.93 , 0.001 adoption diffusion literature because it has been hampered by
H7 2 0.03 20.37 ns the lack of a comprehensive and valid scale of perceived
H8 0.17 2.27 0.025 innovation characteristics. Hopefully, this effort will stimulate
H9 0.33 3.95 , 0.001 research in this important area.
H10 2 0.30 23.86 , 0.001
Note: *Reverse coded 6. Managerial implications
This research extends our current understanding of the inter-
dependent role innovation characteristics have upon not only
demonstrate the scale’s nomological validity. The model themselves but also a consumer’s ultimate adoption behavior.
illustrates the intricate relationships among different While the application of the scale and model developed in this
innovation characteristics, and between them and adoption. paper is restricted by a handful of select products there are a
The higher level latent variables model examined in this study number of implications that may be inferred by any product
is similar to, but distinct from, Holak and Lehmann’s (1990) or brand manager.
path model, and it is the hope that this paper will stimulate First, managers should be aware of the complexity in which
other researchers to postulate and test models of innovation an innovation may be described and evaluated by a consumer.
characteristics and adoption. Traditionally, five broad characteristics are used to describe a
As with any research this study has limitations. One product (complexity, compatibility, relative advantage,
limitation is the reliance of convenience samples during observability, and trialability) (Rogers, 2003). Yet a
exploratory stages of scale development. The EFA samples thorough review of the literature provides for dozens of such
were drawn from students at a single university, and suffered characteristics some of which build upon others to form
from modest sample sizes. In an effort to remedy this, the higher-order characteristics. Given this observation a manager
sample drawn for measurement confirmation came from four can know that by manipulating first-order characteristics they
sources: three geographically dispersed universities and a will ultimately affect a second-order characteristics.
national panel from a marketing research firm. The universities Second, by adding a detailed layer of specification in the
represented different parts of the USA ranging from the deep- way we describe innovations greater precision may be
south to the Pacific Northwest. In addition to geography, these achieved in the planning process. As a result, the measure
schools also differed by student body in that one school was of specific first-order characteristics (e.g. trialability, personal
primary residential, one was a bend of commuter and and social compatibility, economic advantage, etc.) may be
residential and the third was primarily commuter. Finally, the used to generate more accurate product sales forecasts. Such
panel sample was limited to non-students over 40 years of age. specificity may help predict changes in adoption patterns
The wider range of potential adopters in the final sample helps when modifications are made to specific characteristics. For
in the generalizability of the results. instance, suppose a manager could enhance the perception of
A second limitation was the use of a restrictive product set. a product’s social advantage? This enhancement is predicted
In all, seven products were used to gather information. An to increase the broader perception of product compatibility
effort was made to use products that differed in their launch that then leads to a specific, measurable and predictable
dates so different stages of new product diffusion could be change in the rate of adoption.
captured. In addition a blend of durable and non-durable Third, informational characteristics (trialability,
products was sought. However, future research must include a communicability and observability) generally impact positive
greater number of products which would add to the higher-order constructs (comptibility and relative advantage)
robustness of research conclusions. but have little impact in reducing risk and complexity. With
There is a need for continued research in this area. Using the exception of communicability and complexity in-use
the scales developed here, researchers can help further define (r ¼ 2 0.238) all other inter-item correlations between the

352
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway
risk and complexity, and information characteristics is not
significant. This surprising finding suggests that managers
should not rely of information channels to reduce the negative
effect risk and complexity has on adoption. Instead the
manager may focus on service-related augmentations such as
warranties, return policies, and after purchase follow-up help.
References
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1997), “The role of innovation
characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the
acceptance of information technologies”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 557-82.
Aggarwal, P., Taihoon, C. and Wilemon, D. (1998), “Barriers
to the adoption of really-new products and the role of
surrogate buyers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
No. 4, pp. 358-71.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T. (1971), “Brief vs
comprehensive descriptions in measuring intentions to
purchase”, Journal of Market Research, Vol. 8, February,
pp. 114-7.
Åstebro, T. and Michela, J.L. (2005), “Predictors of the
survival of innovations”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 22, pp. 322-35.
Atuahene-Gime, K. (1995), “An exploratory analysis of the
impact of market orientation on new product performance:
a contingency approach”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 12, pp. 275-93.
Bauer, R.A. (1960), “Consumer behavior as risk taking”,
in Hancock, R. (Ed.), Dynamic Marketing for a Changing
World, American Marketing Association, Chicago IL,
pp. 389-98.
Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J.B. (1996), “Exploratory
consumer buying behavior: conceptualization and
measurement”, International Journal or Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 121-37.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989),
“Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, March,
pp. 473-81.
Boyd, T.C. and Mason, C.H. (1999), “The link between
attractiveness and ‘extrabrand’ attributes and the adoption
of innovations”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 306-19.
Calantone, R. and Cooper, R. (1981), “New product
scenarios: prospects for success”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 45, Spring, pp. 48-60.
Cestre, G. and Darmon, R.Y. (1998), “Assessing consumer
preferences in the context of new product diffusion”,
International Journal of Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 123-35.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Cooper, R.G. (1979), “The dimensions of industrial new
product success and failure”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43,
pp. 93-103.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 297-334.
Damanpour, F. and Schneider, M. (2008), “Characteristics of
innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations:
assessing the role of managers”, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 19, pp. 495-522.
353
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Dowling, G.R. and Staelin, R. (1994), “A model of perceived
risk and intended risk-handling activity”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21, June, pp. 119-35.
Downs, G.W. and Mohr, L.B. (1976), “Conceptual issues in
the study of innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 21, pp. 700-14.
Feder, G. (1982), “Adoption of interrelated agricultural
innovations: complementary and of impacts of risk, scale,
and credit”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 94-101.
Fliegel, F.C. and Kivlin, J.E. (1966), “Attributes of
innovations as factors of diffusion”, The American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 235-48.
Fornell, C. and Larker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18, February, pp. 39-50.
Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002), “A critical look at
technological innovation typology and innovativeness
terminology: a literature review”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 19, pp. 110-32.
Gatignon, H. (1986), “Integration of consumer diffusion
theory and diffusion models: new research directions”,
in Mahajan, V. and Wind, Y. (Eds), Innovation Diffusion
Models of New Product Acceptance, Ballinger Publishing,
Cambridge, MA.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T. (1985), “A propositional
inventory for new diffusion research”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 11, pp. 849-67.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated
paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-92.
Goldenberg, J., Lehmann, D.R. and Mazursky, D. (2001),
“The idea itself and the circumstances of its emergence as
predictors of new product success”, Management Science,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Gross, N. (1942), “The diffusion of a culture trait in two Iowa
townships”, MS thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, IA.
Hatcher, L. (1994), A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS for
Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling, SAS
Publishing, Cary, NC.
Heany, D.F. (1983), “Degrees of innovation”, Journal or
Business Strategy, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 3-14.
Henard, D. and Szymanski, D. (2001), “Why some new
products are more successful than others”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38, August, pp. 362-75.
Herbig, P. and Day, R. (1992), “Customer acceptance: the
key to successful introductions of innovations”, Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Hoeffler, S. (2003), “Measuring preferences for really new
products”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40,
November, pp. 406-20.
Holak, S.L. (1985), “An approach for analyzing innovative
consumer durables: an intermediate test procedures for
suggesting product modification and predicting
acceptance”, doctoral dissertation, Columbia University
Graduate School of Business, New York, NY.
Holak, S.L. (1988), “Determinants of innovative durables
adoption: an empirical study with implications for early
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway
product screening”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 5, pp. 50-69.
Holak, S.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (1990), “Purchase intentions
and the dimensions of innovation: an exploratory model”,
Journal of Product Innovation and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 59-73.
Holak, S.L., Lehmann, D.R. and Sultan, F. (1987), “The role
of expectations in the adoption of innovative consumer
durables: some preliminary evidence”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 243-59.
Indrakoses, G. (2003), “Dimensions of perceived innovation
characteristics and typology of innovations”, in AMA Winter
Educators’ Proceedings, American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory:
an analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
No. 2, pp. 263-91.
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R. and Angst, C.M. (2006),
“Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology
acceptance research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 781-804.
Labay, D.G. and Kinnear, T.C. (1981), “Exploring the
consumer decision process in the adoption of solar energy”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 271-8.
Marquis, D.G. (1969), “The anatomy of successful
innovations”, Innovation Magazine, November.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an
instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an
information technology innovation”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 192-222.
More, R.A. (1982), “Risk factors in accepted and rejected
new industrial products”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 11, pp. 9-15.
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. and Sharma, S. (2003),
Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ostlund, L.E. (1974), “Perceived innovation attributes as
predictors of innovativeness”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 1, pp. 23-9.
Rogers, E.M. (1958), “A conceptual variable analysis of
technical change”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 23, pp. 136-45.
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Ryan, B. and Gross, N. (1943), “The diffusion of hybrid seed
corn in two Iowa communities”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 4,
pp. 273-82.
Sheth, J. (1968), “Perceived risk and the diffusion of
innovations”, in Arndt, J. (Ed.), Insights in Consumer
Behavior, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Shimp, T.A. and Bearden, W.O. (1982), “Warranty and other
extrinsic cue effects on consumers’ risk perceptions”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, June, pp. 38-47.
Shoemaker, R. and Shoaf, R. (1975), “Behavioral changes in
the trial of new products”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 2, pp. 104-11.
Tate, R. (1998), An Introduction to Modeling Outcomes in the
Behavioral and Social Sciences, Burgess, Edina, MN.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O. and Hunter, G.L. (2001),
“Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scale development and
354
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355
validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, June,
pp. 50-66.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982), “Innovation
characteristics and innovation-adoption implementation:
a meta-analysis of findings”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, pp. 28-45, EM-29.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D.
(2003), “User acceptance of information technology:
toward a unified view”, MIS Technology Quarterly, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 425-78.
Venkatraman, M.P. (1991), “The impact of innovativeness
and innovation type on adoption”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Wejnert, B. (2002), “Integrating models of diffusion of
innovations: a conceptual framework”, Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 28, pp. 297-326.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
It is claimed in certain studies that consumer interest in new
innovations is determined by their perception of its
characteristics. Innovation characteristics have generally
incorporated “trialability, compatibility, relative advantage,
observability and complexity”. The distribution of a new
innovation within a market is either hastened or hampered by
each of these traits. A recent addition to this list is perceived
risk, which is acknowledged as a characteristic that negatively
impacts on innovation adoption. Ongoing study has examined
these and various other characteristics, many of which are
conceptually similar.
The focus on innovation diffusion has spanned many
disciplines and attracted varying descriptions involving
differing criteria. As a result, scholars recognize that a
multi-dimensional scale is needed to depict product
innovation characteristics. Greater accuracy in assessing
their significance might help better predict whether or not
an innovation will succeed.
Given the conceptual overlap among the characteristics, the
present study proposes the formation of four higher order
constructs, respectively labeled:
.
Information. Descriptors are included that help the
information flow to potential adopters. Information is
transferred via internal channels like social networking
and word-of-mouth (WOM), and external channels that
include advertising and public relations. Information helps
consumers to learn what benefits the innovation can
provide. This construct is based on observability,
trialability and communicability characteristics identified
in earlier studies. Observation is seen as a “very useful and
powerful mechanism” for relaying details about new
products. If people can see others using the innovation, it
makes them more confident about its value. Being able to
test the product is another means of reducing uncertainty.
Trailing the product is particularly important for earlier
adopters for whom opportunities to observe are minimal.
 Characteristics-based innovation adoption: scale and model validation
Richard L. Flight, Giles D’Souza, and Arthur W. Allaway
Communicating the benefits of the innovation is vital too.
Researchers have said that communicability is present if
its use and benefits can be simply relayed or when the new
product can be described easily to others.
. Compatibility. How well the innovation might fit the
adopter’s personal and social life in terms of values, needs
and experiences is the crux of this construct. Compatibility
on a personal level is measured by fit with existing habits
and lifestyle. The social dimension of the construct refers to
the innovation’s capacity to facilitate behavioral norms with
a specific reference class. An innovation can be used to gain
status, although this benefit erodes when other members of
similar social standing become adopters. Some authors
point out the relevance of volition. The premise here is that
individuals may have little choice to adopt an innovation in
different contexts. Adoption is often mandatory at work,
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)
while in non-employment situations people might be
pressured into using a new innovation by family
members, peers or other social referents.
.
Relative advantage. This refers to consumer perception
that the innovation offers superior physical or technical
attributes that can add improvement and value to the
adopter in relation to alternative choices. The construct
incorporates economic advantage, which can emerge
through initial cost, cost savings and increased efficiency.
An option to customize product features to maximize
benefits is another aspect, along with anticipated product
performance; and
.
Risk and complexity. Characteristics which help potential
adopters determine how likely an innovation will meet their
needs and desires are the foundation of this construct.
Derivation is also from dimensions expressing
“bewilderment or doubt” about the innovation and
research has shown that perceived risk negatively impacts
on adoption. Complexity is linked with risk, and
innovations considered complex in design, technicality or
ease of use might be embraced less enthusiastically. Risk
can additionally be associated with a specific product
category concerning such as health factors or legal issues.
Scholars note product discontinuity in relation to risk.
Consumers are likely to be less concerned about new
products that require only minor behavioral change. On the
other hand, more disruptive innovations demand greater
effort and change and are consequently perceived as riskier.
Historically, innovation characteristics have been divided into
primary and secondary dimensions. Primary characteristics
apply universally, whereas those deemed secondary are unique
to individual adopters or specific consumer segments. The
information construct is seen as primary and it is proposed that
links exist between it and other characteristics like
compatibility, relative advantage and risk. Increased
information might enable consumers to see the innovation as
compatible with their lifestyle, acknowledge likely benefits and
feel les apprehensive about potential negative consequences.
Adoption becomes more probable under these conditions.
Exploratory analysis was conducted to consider items
associated with the constructs. The exhaustive list initially
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
355
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2011 · 343 –355
generated was progressively reduced. This study phase included
data collection from 108 undergraduates who responded to
statements about one randomly assigned new product concept.
In the main study, subjects were recruited from three
geographically dispersed US universities and from an online
panel of respondents. Only those over 40 years-old were
selected from the panel in order to raise the overall mean age
of the sample. The 383 participants were randomly assigned
to one product description about a new digital camera, MP3
player or Blu-Ray DVD player and asked for their response to
various statements. It was expected that those adopting the
technology would rate favorable characteristics higher and
unfavorable ones lower than non-adopters.
Various hypotheses were tested and indicated that:
.
trialability, observability and communicability are
positively related to the information construct;
.
personal compatibility, social compatibility and social
advantage are positively related to the compatibility
construct;
.
volition is negatively related to the compatibility construct;
.
relative advantage by attribute, relative economic
advantage, customizability and product performance are
positively related to the relative advantage construct;
.
complexity in both use and design, product category risk
and discontinuity are positively related to the risk and
complexity construct;
.
information is positively related to compatibility and
relative advantage;
.
compatibility and relative advantage are positively related
to adoption; and
.
risk is negatively related to adoption.
It was expected that information would serve to reduce risk
and complexity but this relationship was not found to be
significant. Overall, the findings corroborated the proposal of
Flight et al. that characteristics can be grouped together.
The authors suggest that managers should manipulate first-
order characteristics and impact second-order characteristics
as a result. It is additionally mooted that greater specification
about innovations can lead to more precise planning. This can
help in the measurement of certain first-order characteristics
that might be used to enhance sales forecast accuracy and
predict changes in adoption patterns. Flight et al. also point to
the minimal impact of information on risk reduction and
recommend that managers should instead emphasize service-
related issues like warranties, returns policies and after-sales
support as the way to assure potential adopters.
Future research might help managers identify
characteristics likely to most influence the diffusion pattern
of an innovation. Another issue worthy of exploration is the
potential antecedents of perceived innovation characteristics
and their likely significance. Using products greater in both
number and variety will help overcome an acknowledged
study limitation to generalize findings more.
(A précis of the article “Characteristics-based innovation adoption:
scale and model validation”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants
for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Dariyoush Jamshidi, Nazimah Hussin. 2016. Islamic Credit Card Adoption Understanding: When Innovation Diffusion Theory
Meets Satisfaction and Social Influence. Journal of Promotion Management 22:6, 897-917. [CrossRef]
2. N. Elangovan. 2016. Mediation of Perceived Innovation Characteristics on ERP Adoption in Industrial Cluster. International
Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 13:03, 1640003. [CrossRef]
3. S Moro, I Wictor, A Braghini, A MichaloskiVerification of project requirements that influence workers’ health in the development
of industrial equipment 143-146. [CrossRef]
4. Jeongeun Kim. 2014. A Qualitative Analysis of User Experiences With a Self-Tracker for Activity, Sleep, and Diet. interactive
Journal of Medical Research 3:1, e8. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Nirma University of Science and Technology At 22:05 28 November 2016 (PT)