Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

The impact of mortality anxiety on attitude toward product innovation☆,☆☆ T

Benjamin Boeuf
IESEG School of Management - LEM-CNRS 9221, Marketing and International Negotiation Department, 1 parvis de la Défense, Socle de la Grande Arche, 92044 Paris-La
Défense, France

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Threatening environmental stimuli, such as terror attacks, armed conflicts and death imagery in advertising,
Mortality anxiety have been shown to positively affect consumer attitudes and behaviors toward products. This article calls into
State nostalgia question the generalizability of this effect to innovative products by showing that mortality anxiety, i.e., in-
Product innovation dividuals' fear of their own mortality, leads to product innovation resistance. Drawing from the literature on
Retro-innovation
innovation adoption and mortality anxiety, four experimental studies provide evidence that while mortality
Innovation adoption
anxiety has a positive impact on the evaluation of noninnovative products, it negatively affects the evaluation of
innovative products. When faced with mortality anxiety, consumers are more likely to experience state nostalgia,
a temporary backward-looking mindset, in contrast with the forward-looking mode necessary to favor product
innovation adoption. This process is confirmed by the positive impact of mortality anxiety on attitude toward
innovative products that trigger feelings of nostalgia, or retro-innovation.

1. Introduction indicates that by activating mortality anxiety, current political and

In the context of globalization and competitive markets, the ability of
firms to introduce new products is paramount to their survival and success
(Story, Boso, & Cadogan, 2015). Research on innovation has increasingly
acknowledged factors that could explain why new product failure rates can
be as high as 90% (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2015). In particular, three
types of factors that explain why consumers adopt or resist product in-
novation have been identified (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014): product-spe-
cific (Li, Zhang, & Wang, 2015; Moon, Bergey, Bove, & Robinson, 2016;
Talke & Snelders, 2013), consumer-specific (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2015;
Park, Han, & Park, 2013; Trujillo, Barrios, Camacho, & Rosa, 2010; Van
Tonder, 2017), and situation-specific factors (Heidenreich, Spieth, &
Petschnig, 2017; Kim & Park, 2011; Kleijnen, Lee, & Wetzels, 2009). The
current paper identifies existential threats as an additional consumer-spe-
cific factor that may affect adoption-related behavior.
The awareness and fear of one's own mortality, or mortality anxiety
(Becker, 1973; Routledge, Arndt, Sedikides, & Wildschut, 2008), is in-
creasingly pervasive in our societies; indeed, the threat of terrorism
(Herzenstein, Horsky, & Posavac, 2015) and death-related television
programming, whether in dramas or the news (Rangan, Singh, Landau,
& Choi, 2015), now occupy a central place in our collective experience.
However, insufficient research effort has been invested in examining
the impact of mortality anxiety on innovation adoption. This research
mass media reports, which steadily cover death-related issues, such as
terror attacks, natural disasters, wars, famines, and homicides (Burke,
Kosloff, & Landau, 2013), may hamper innovation adoption.
In particular, the findings of four experimental studies offer three sig-
nificant contributions. First, since the seminal paper by Arndt, Solomon,
Kasser, and Sheldon (2004), an important stream of work in consumer
psychology has consistently shown that mortality anxiety sustains materi-
alistic pursuits and leads to indulging. A positive effect of mortality anxiety
on product attitude and purchase intentions has been demonstrated across
various product categories (e.g., Das, Duiven, Arendsen, & Vermeulen,
2014; Fransen, Fennis, Pruyn, & Das, 2008). Yet, prior research has not
considered innovative products, i.e., new products that generally embody
new technology and change consumption patterns (Chiesa & Frattini, 2011;
Garcia & Calantone, 2002). Investigating the impact of mortality anxiety on
consumers' response to product innovation could help understand the role
of the current environment, where mortality anxiety is regularly activated
by terror attacks, economic recessions and armed conflicts, on innovation
adoption. The present paper fills this gap and examines the effect of mor-
tality anxiety on product innovation. By measuring the diverging impact of
mortality anxiety on response to innovative vs. noninnovative products, the
research results demonstrate that the level of innovation may affect how
existential threats direct consumer choices. The research findings show that
while mortality anxiety improves consumers' response to noninnovative

☆
This work was supported by IESEG School of Management.
☆☆
The author confirms the availability of the data for all studies.
E-mail address: b.boeuf@ieseg.fr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.031
Received 5 April 2018; Received in revised form 18 June 2019; Accepted 19 June 2019
Available online 11 July 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
B. Boeuf
products, it inhibits consumer adoption processes of innovative products.
Second, as consumers feel threatened by the thought of dying, they seek
to counteract mortality anxiety through worldview defense strategies or
self-protection mechanisms that offer a sense of security and symbolic im-
mortality (Juhl, Routledge, Arndt, Sedikides, & Wildschut, 2010). In parti-
cular, prior work has suggested that individuals protect themselves from
mortality anxiety through state nostalgia (Study 3 in Routledge et al., 2011),
defined as momentary sentimental longing for one's past (Sedikides &
Wildschut, 2018; Seehusen et al., 2013). While the literature on innovation
adoption has identified trait nostalgia as a determinant of resistance to new
products (Van Tonder, 2017), the current research provides, for the first
time, insight into how state nostalgia, independent from individual pre-
disposition to nostalgia, may negatively affect innovation adoption. More
specifically, Studies 1 and 2 show a mediating effect of state nostalgia on
the relationship between mortality anxiety and attitude toward product
innovation. Studies 3 and 4 provide more evidence confirming this process
by identifying a positive effect of mortality anxiety on attitude toward new
products that are connected to nostalgic memories, or retro-innovative pro-
ducts (Castellano, Ivanova, Adnane, Safraou, & Schiavone, 2013).
Finally, the research findings indicate that the impact of state nos-
talgia on attitudinal response toward product innovation is prevented
by consumer innovativeness, a tendency to buy new products (Cotte &
Wood, 2004). By reducing the perceived risks associated with newness,
consumer innovativeness lowers the psychological conflict between
state nostalgia and product innovation. This result is in line with the
main prediction that mortality anxiety negatively affects response to
product innovation due to a psychological conflict between a backward-
looking mindset (state nostalgia) and the uncertainties associated with
newness (product innovation).
2. Theoretical background
This research examines the effect of mortality anxiety on attitude
toward innovative products and extends prior studies that investigate 1)
the factors that help to explain and predict adoption-related behaviors
and 2) how mortality anxiety triggers defense strategies leading to
materialistic pursuits. Fig. 1 graphically represents the conceptual
model.
2.1. Resistance to innovation adoption
A growing stream of work asserts that the literature on innovation
adoption has suffered from a pro-change bias, i.e., the assumption that
consumers are open to innovation because all innovations are suppo-
sedly good (e.g., Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). These academic in-
vestigations have identified three types of factors that could explain
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
45
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
why consumers would adopt (or not) innovative products: product-
specific, consumer-specific, and situation-specific factors (Table 1).
Product characteristics influence innovation adoption through atti-
tude formation after new product evaluation (Laukkanen et al., 2007).
Among product-specific attributes, research has identified product
originality (Li et al., 2015), product performance and costs (Wiedmann
et al., 2011), and product information (Moon et al., 2016), including
launch messages (Talke & Snelders, 2013) and word-of-mouth
(Jahanmir & Cavadas, 2018).
However, resistance to innovation can also appear prior to product
evaluation. Consumers resist changes when innovations cause a conflict
with certain predispositions, independent of product characteristics
(Kleijnen et al., 2009). In particular, research on consumer-specific factors
has focused on individual predispositions (Kleijnen et al., 2009), which
include demographics (Laukkanen, 2016; Mani & Chouk, 2018) and per-
sonality traits, such as consumer innovativeness (Arts et al., 2011;
Hirunyawipada & Paswan, 2006), need for uniqueness (Park et al., 2013),
and trait nostalgia (Van Tonder, 2017), as well as social class (Trujillo et al.,
2010) and consumer values (Claudy et al., 2015). Similarly, consumers tend
to resist innovation adoption when innovative products require too much
change in established behavioral habits or patterns, such as daily routines
and habits (Kleijnen et al., 2009), social and personal values (Kim & Park,
2011), and consumer lifestyle (Kleijnen et al., 2004). Finally, situation-
specific factors can also prevent innovation adoption by creating a conflict
with the desire to adopt new products. These factors include monetary re-
strictions, shopping environment (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014) and public
policy (Heidenreich et al., 2017)
Overall, because consumers strive for consistency and psychological
equilibrium, the changes that the new product could cause are either
adopted or resisted based on such predispositions (Heidenreich &
Handrich, 2015). More specifically, while consumer-specific factors
create an inclination to resist changes, situation-specific factors favor
the status quo (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). In the present article, it is
argued that mortality anxiety can be considered a consumer-specific
factor that would affect innovation adoption. By triggering a backward-
looking mindset as a defense mechanism, mortality anxiety would
create a psychological conflict with products that are associated with
changes and uncertainties.
2.2. Counteracting existential threats
The consumer psychology literature suggests that mortality anxiety
triggers a psychological discomfort that results from what Becker
(1973) called an existential dilemma, i.e., the uniquely human combi-
nation of a) the drive for self-preservation and b) the awareness of one's
own inevitable mortality. Because “death is a problem that does not simply
 Table 1
Empirical research on the factors of innovation adoption.
Citation
Arts, Frambach, & Bijmolt, 2011
Claudy, Garcia, & O'Driscoll,
2015
Heidenreich & Handrich, 2015
Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015
46
Heidenreich, Kraemer, &
Handrich, 2016
Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013
Heidenreich et al., 2017
Hirunyawipada & Paswan, 2006
Jahanmir & Cavadas, 2018
Joachim, Spieth, & Heidenreich,
2018
Kim & Park, 2011
Primary topic
Influence of innovation
characteristics on innovation
adoption
Relative influence of adoption
and resistance factors
Passive innovation resistance
Passive innovation resistance
Cognitive and situational passive
resistance
Passive and active innovation
resistance
The role of external policies on
adoption of eco-friendly
innovations
Adoption of high technology
products
Determinants of late adoption of
digital innovations
Active innovation resistance
Social influence on innovation
adoption
Factors examined
Product-specific
Product complexity
Relative advantage of the product
Product compatibility
Product trialability
Product observability
Product uncertainty
Product complexity
Relative advantage of the product
Product compatibility
Product trialability
Product observability
Product uncertainty
Value compatibility
Perceived Usefulness
Perceived Ease of Use
Usage and value barriers
Financial barriers
Image barriers
Degree of newness
Product-specific barriers
Global brand image
17 product-specific adoption
barriers (eight psychological and
nine functional barriers)
Consumer-specific
Consumer innovativeness
Consumer demographics
Consumers' values
Openness to change
Inclination to resist changes
Status quo satisfaction
Hedonist and social innovativeness
Consumer demographics
Inclination to resist changes
Preference for status quo
Inclination to resist changes
Status quo satisfaction
Consumer innovativeness
Consumer innovativeness
Attitude toward a technology
Consumer innovativeness
Lead-user profile
Personal values
B. Boeuf
Key findings
Situation-specific
This meta-analysis identifies important differences
between the determinants of intention to adopt new
products and factors that explain actual adoption. In
particular, the benefits of an innovation have stronger
influence on behavior than intention while demographics
have less influence.
By applying behavioral reasoning theory, this paper shows
how the reasons for and the reasons against innovation
adoption impact consumers' decisions in different ways.
Development of a scale to measure individual differences
in passive innovation resistance, or consumers'
predisposition to resist innovations.
Levels of perceived Passive innovation resistance strongly reduces innovation
stimulation adoption. This effect is reinforced when the levels of
perceived stimulation are high.
Adoption intention is decreased by both inclination to
resist and preference for status quo, and even more if both
types of resistance are high (dual passive resistance).
Both active resistance (measured by product-specific
barriers) and passive resistance (measured by inclination to
resist changes and status quo satisfaction) strongly inhibit
intention to adopt product innovation.
External policies 1) Consumer innovativeness has a strong positive effect on
Infrastructure innovation adoption, and 2) external policies stimulate the
Incentives adoption of innovative products.
Social risks 1) Cognitive and domain-specific innovativeness increases
innovation adoption, while 2) sensory innovativeness and
perceived social risks increase consumers' propensity to
acquire new information about innovation.
Negative word of mouth 1) Negative word of mouth has a detrimental impact on
about the technology rate of adoption, and 2) other variables negatively affect
the probability of moving from late to early adopter.
This paper confirms that 17 product-specific adoption
barriers negatively impact innovation adoption. It also
offers the first empirical investigation on the relative
importance of each of these barriers.
Social norms and values Social influence is a critical element in innovation
adoption. Several social factors are investigated, including
attractiveness of the prompter, number of prompters, and
prior knowledge.
(continued on next page)
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
 Table 1 (continued)
B. Boeuf

Citation Primary topic Factors examined Key findings

Product-specific Consumer-specific Situation-specific

Kleijnen, de Ruyter, & Wetzels,
2004
Kleijnen et al., 2009
Laukkanen, 2016
Laukkanen, Sinkkonen,
Kivijärvi, & Laukkanen,
2007
Li et al., 2015
Lunsford & Burnett, 1992
Mani & Chouk, 2018
Adoption of wireless services
Antecedents to innovation
resistance
Factors driving service
innovation resistance
Mobile banking adoption for
elderly consumers
The role of product attributes in
new product adoption intentions
Innovations and elderly market
segment
Consumers' resistance to smart
services
Product complexity Consumer lifestyle The paper identifies three consumer segments for adoption
Product compatibility Perceived risks of wireless services, based on perceived risks, complexity
and compatibility: “Value Seekers,” “Risk Avoiders,” and
“Game Players”.
Behavioral patterns, norms, habits and 1) Hierarchical pattern of the antecedents to innovation
traditions resistance around three components: rejection,
Existing values, habits and past postponement, and opposition.
experiences 2) Two main groups of antecedents to innovation
resistance: degree of change required and conflict with
consumers' belief structure.
Usage, value, risk, tradition, and Gender, age, and income Relative importance of each factors in inhibiting Internet
image barriers and mobile banking adoption.
Usage, value, risk, tradition and Age The most significant differences between elderly and
image barriers younger consumers' perceptions of mobile banking were
related to product features (eg, battery life).
Product originality Consumer innovativeness 1) Product usefulness is more positively related to adoption
Product usefulness intentions than product originality because it is easier to
perceive. 2) Consumer innovativeness has only a weak
effect on adoption intentions.
Age Conceptual model of product, individual, and situational
barriers to innovation adoption that are specific to the
elderly.
Complexity Inertia Ideological barriers (skepticism toward product category)
Price Consumer demographics mediates the impact of technological vulnerability barriers

47
Moon et al., 2016
Park et al., 2013
Talke & Heidenreich, 2014
Talke & Snelders, 2013
Trujillo et al., 2010
Van Tonder, 2017
Adoption of innovative,
sustainable products
E-customization
Active and passive innovation
resistance
Information in launch messages
of new high-tech consumer
products
New product technology
Passive innovation resistance
Security risk
Health risk
Technological vulnerability barrier
Message framing, educational
message
Retailer attributes: location and
payment convenience, price, and
cleanliness
Functional barriers
Product-related information in
launch messages
Need for human interaction
Technological dependence
Technological anxiety
General skepticism
Consumer traits: environmental
consciousness, prosocial, openness to
experience, and vertical individualism
Need for uniqueness
Status aspiration
Psychological barriers
Socioeconomic class
Self-esteem
Self-assessed capabilities
Need for cognitive closure
Nostalgia
Authoritarianism
Social dominance orientation
Ethnocentrism
Anti-hedonic approach toward life
or individual barriers on resistance to smart services.
1) A negatively framed educational message on the
negative impact of non-sustainable products is most
effective. 2) Vertical individualism negatively impacts
adoption while environmental consciousness, prosocial,
and openness to experience had positive effects.
1) The need for uniqueness has a direct impact on
consumers' attitude toward e-customized products, 2) and
mediates the limited impact of status aspiration on
attitude.
Time pressure Elaboration of a model that distinguishes between
Monetary restrictions innovation resistance that occurs prior to (passive
Retail environment resistance) and after (active resistance) new product
specifics evaluation.
Communicating in an abstract way personal or social
information leads to the highest adoption behavior.
Low socioeconomic class consumers are less likely to adopt
new product technologies because of their lower self-
esteem and self-assessed capabilities.
Conservative consumers are less willing to try new
products and prefer nostalgic products because they lead to
less disruption.
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60

(continued on next page)

B. Boeuf Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60

go away” (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Simon, & Breus, 1994, p.

Identification of four consumer segments in the context of

natural gas vehicles, with reference to the risk dimensions
as perceived by consumers: the “Status-Oriented Skeptics”,
636), mortality anxiety activates defensive maneuvers to deal with this

Mortality anxiety leads to less (more) favorable attitude

“Ecology-Minded Non-Drivers”, “Performance-Oriented
unsolvable tension and reduce this discomfort (Fransen, Smeesters, &
Fennis, 2011) (Table 2).

toward innovation (retro-innovation). Consumer

As mortality anxiety threatens their sense of meaning in life (Arndt,

Traditionalists”, and “Risk-Averse Drivers”.

Landau, Vail III, & Vess, 2013), individuals seek to counteract mortality

innovativeness moderates this impact.

anxiety through the defense of their values, which offer a sense of se-
curity and symbolic immortality (Das et al., 2014; Juhl et al., 2010).
The positive impact of mortality anxiety on attitude toward marketing
content and purchase intentions can be interpreted as a defense strategy
of consumers' worldview since materialism and consumerism are lar-
gely seen as important Western values (Arndt et al., 2004; Fransen
et al., 2008).
Key findings

In this way, to reach equilibrium and reassurance in their values and

habits against existential threats, consumers turn to a protective per-
ception of reality and become temporarily more nostalgic (Routledge
et al., 2011). Indeed, by bolstering a sense of meaning, state nostalgia
acts as a defense strategy against mortality anxiety (Routledge,
Wildschut, Sedikides, Juhl, & Arndt, 2012; Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt,
& Routledge, 2006). Supporting this idea, while mortality anxiety in-
Situation-specific

creases efforts to attain meaning (Arndt et al., 2013), nostalgia, as a

positive psychological resource, provides a sense of life meaning
(Routledge et al., 2012; Wildschut et al., 2006). Individuals turn to the
past, a meaning-providing structure, to distance themselves from the
future, a time associated with death (Routledge et al., 2008; Routledge
et al., 2012). Through their temporal thinking abilities, individuals
Physical, performance, financial, time,

think about their past (backward-looking mindset) as a defense strategy

Mortality anxiety State nostalgia

against a menacing future (forward-looking mindset).

social, and psychological risks

However, the adoption of innovative products, regarded as “a belief

Consumer innovativeness

in seeing beyond the present” (Kuczmarski, 2003, p.537), requires a for-

ward-looking mindset (Caerteling, Halman, Song, Dorée, & Bij, 2013).
Consumer-specific

Because newness encompasses uncertainties and risks (Conchar,

Zinkhan, Peters, & Olavarrieta, 2004), product innovation implies the
potential disruption of an individual's reassuring values and habits.
Product innovation adoption depends on innovation compatibility with
consumers' existing usage patterns (Garcia & Calantone, 2002) as well
as consumers' values, traditions and norms (Kim & Park, 2011). Zhao,
Product association with the past

Hoeffler, and Dahl (2012) showed that the evaluation of new products
is less favorable when consumers have difficulties mentally projecting
new uses. In opposition, forward-looking consumers adapt their buying
behavior by anticipating future product improvements (Krishnan &
Ramachandran, 2011).
(retro-innovation)
Factors examined

Product-specific

It is predicted that consumers would reject product innovation to

prevent the psychological conflict between the reassuring backward-
looking mindset (state nostalgia) and the uncertainties associated with
newness. To maintain their defense strategy against mortality anxiety,
consumers would thus develop lower attitudinal responses toward
products associated with the future. This may result in unfavorable
innovation and retro-innovation
Adoption and resistance toward

innovative product judgment and intention to purchase innovative

sustainable solutions in the

Mortality anxiety, product

products. While highly nostalgic consumers are less willing to adopt

new products (Van Tonder, 2017), by triggering a temporary state of
automotive sector

nostalgia, mortality anxiety would cause a psychological conflict with

product innovation independent of the trait nostalgia. Formally,
Primary topic

H1. Mortality anxiety decreases attitude toward innovative products.

H2. State nostalgia mediates the negative effect of mortality anxiety on
attitude toward innovative products.
Wiedmann, Hennigs, Pankalla,

H2a. Mortality anxiety is positively related to state nostalgia.

Kassubek, & Seegebarth,

H2b. State nostalgia is negatively related to attitude toward innovative

Table 1 (continued)

products.
However, the impact of nostalgia on response to product innovation
Present study

should be moderated by consumer innovativeness or an individual's

2011
Citation

tendency to adopt new behaviors and new products (Cotte & Wood,
2004). Consumer innovativeness is one of the key drivers of innovation

48

Table 2
Empirical research on the effects of mortality anxiety on consumer behavior.
Citation
Arndt et al., 2004
Dar-Nimrod, 2012
Das et al., 2014
Fransen et al., 2008
Fransen et al., 2011
Herzenstein et al., 2015
Huang, Huang, & Jiang, 2018
49
Huang & Wyer Jr, 2015
Mandel & Heine, 1999
Rangan et al., 2015
Rindfleisch & Burroughs,
2004
Rindfleisch, Burroughs, &
Wong, 2009
Shim & White, 2017
van Bommel, O'Dwyer,
Zuidgeest, & Poletiek,
2015
Present study
Effect of mortality anxiety
on
Materialism
Desirability of advertised
products
Purchase intentions
Spending intentions
Charity donations
Attitude toward domestic
products vs. foreign
products
Attitude toward luxury and
non-luxury brands
Desire to go out vs. to stay
at home
Consumers' value
orientation and scope
sensitivity to marketing
stimuli
Variety seeking behavior
High-status items
Domestic vs. Foreign ads
Materialism
Brand connection
Brand loyalty
Experiential vs. material
purchases
Conspicuous products
Familiar brands
Innovative and retro-
innovative products
B. Boeuf
Mechanism(s) Source of mortality anxiety Key findings
Internal External
Worldview defense Conceptualization of terror management theory.
Self-esteem
Death reminder in television A death reminder in television shows reinforces the desirability of
shows advertised products.
A death reminder increases unconscious thoughts Advertisements with a death A mortality reminder in an advertisement increases purchase
about death reminder intentions. Unconscious death thoughts mediate this effect.
Worldview defense Explicit, implicit and subliminal An insurance brand automatically increases the accessibility of
insurance brand exposure (brand death-related thoughts. This results in increased spending
logo) intentions and charity donations, as well as more (less) favorable
attitude toward domestic (foreign) products.
Self-esteem Open-ended Social presence moderates the effects of mortality anxiety on
questions (essays) product attitudes (more positive attitude toward luxury brands,
and more negative attitude toward non-luxury brands).
Desire for control Scale of mortality Text about terror attacks Mortality anxiety increases desire for control, which in turn
anxiety favors the desire to avoid high-risk behaviors.
Death-related media information predisposes Open-ended News article about diabetes and Death-related media information (thinking about one's own death)
consumers to focus more on intrinsic values, questions (essays) cancer decreases (increases) consumers' sensitivity to marketing stimuli.
resulting in less attention to marketing stimuli
Worldview defense Mental simulation Semantic concept activation Thinking about one's own death (activating semantic concepts of
Self-esteem death) decreases (increases) the variety of participants' choices.
The acquisition of high-status items makes Questions about Mortality anxiety leads to more (less) favorable attitude toward
consumers feel more valuable death high-status items (low or non-status items).
Worldview defense Death-related television The different impact of death-related television programming on
programming evaluations of the embedded domestic vs. foreign ad depends on
pod position.
Commentary on Arndt et al. (2004), especially on the changing
nature of materialism.
Materialism Scale of mortality Materialistic consumers form brand connections to reduce
anxiety mortality anxiety.
Open-ended
questions (essays)
Desire for meaningfulness Writing tasks Mortality anxiety leads to a preference for experiential over
material consumption.
Worldview defense Open-ended Mortality anxiety increases preference for conspicuous (vs. non-
Self-esteem questions (essays) conspicuous) products and familiar (vs. non-familiar) brands.
State nostalgia Open-ended Video about terrorism Mortality anxiety leads to less (more) favorable attitude toward
Consumer innovativeness questions (essays) innovation (retro-innovation) through state nostalgia. Consumer
innovativeness moderates this impact.
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
 B. Boeuf

Table 3
Demographic distribution of the samples (percentage of total).
Study 1 (n = 195)

Gender Age

Female 51.3 18–24 18.5

Male 48.7 25–34 34.3
35–44 29.3
45–54 13.8
55–65 2.6
> 65 1.5

Study 3 (n = 91)

Gender Age Income (£K)

50
Female 41.8 18–24 18.5 < 15 13.2
Male 58.2 25–34 34.3 15–25 13.2
35–44 29.3 25–35 14.3
45–54 13.8 35–50 15.4
55–65 2.6 50–75 19.8
> 65 1.5 75–100 14.3
> 100 9.9

Study 4 (n = 122)

Gender Age Income (£K)

Female 54.1 18–24 18.9 < 15 13.1

Male 45.9 25–34 34.4 15–25 19.7
35–44 18.0 25–35 22.1
45–54 14.8 35–50 23.8
55–65 12.3 50–75 9.0
> 65 1.6 75–100 6.6
> 100 5.7
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
B. Boeuf
adoption (Arts et al., 2011). For example, highly innovative consumers
favor new brands to a greater extent than less innovative individuals
(Truong, Klink, Simmons, Grinstein, & Palmer, 2017). The current re-
search focuses on domain-specific innovativeness over global innova-
tiveness, as previous literature has shown that there is no overlap of
innovativeness across domains or product categories (Goldsmith &
Hofacker, 1991). In particular, Goldsmith, Freiden, and Eastman (1995)
identified weak (strong) correlations between global innovativeness
(domain-specific innovativeness) and the purchase of new products.
Two important factors underlie the prediction that consumer in-
novativeness will affect the relationship between state nostalgia and
consumers' judgment but not the relationship between mortality an-
xiety and state nostalgia. First, highly innovative individuals present a
higher level of risk tolerance and are less likely to engage in risk-re-
duction strategies toward innovation than less innovative individuals
(Hirunyawipada & Paswan, 2006). It follows that these individuals
should perceive fewer uncertainties associated with newness and thus
less conflict between state nostalgia and product innovation than their
less innovative counterparts. In sum, by reducing the perceived risks
associated with innovation, consumer innovativeness is predicted to
prevent the negative impact of state nostalgia on innovation adoption.
Second, although research has indicated that highly nostalgic con-
sumers (trait nostalgia) exhibit lower levels of innovativeness (Karande,
Merchant, & Sivakumar, 2011), no research has identified a causal re-
lationship between innovativeness and nostalgia. Importantly, state
nostalgia, a momentary state triggered by a search for meaning, man-
ifests independently of trait nostalgias (Sedikides & Wildschut, 2018;
Seehusen et al., 2013). Triggered by mortality anxiety, state nostalgia
would act as a defense strategy to regain a sense of meaning. Although
highly innovative consumers perceive innovation as less risky than less
innovative consumers, it seems reasonable to believe that this trait
would not affect their defense strategy against existential threats.
H3. The negative relationship between state nostalgia and attitude
toward innovative products is negatively moderated by consumer
innovativeness.
2.3. The present research
Building on both research areas (innovation adoption and mortality
anxiety), the current research proposes that individuals' ability to re-
flect on past events as a compensatory strategy in response to mortality
anxiety is likely to foster a defensive and reassuring backward-looking
mindset, in opposition to the forward-looking mode necessary to favor
product innovation adoption (Castellano et al., 2013). In particular, it is
predicted that since product innovation can be in conflict with the in-
the-moment nostalgic mindset triggered by mortality anxiety, state
nostalgia mediates the negative impact of mortality anxiety on con-
sumers' response to product innovation. In this model, consumer in-
novativeness moderates the relationship between state nostalgia and
attitudes.
In particular, Study 1 measures the direct and mediated effects of
mortality on attitude toward product innovation. Study 2 replicates
these results and investigates the moderating role of consumer in-
novativeness. To gain converging evidence, procedural changes are
introduced in Study 3. While the first two studies manipulate the level
of product innovation and measure state nostalgia triggered by mor-
tality anxiety, Study 3 manipulates the association between the in-
novative product and nostalgic memories and tests consumers' response
to innovation vs. retro-innovation. Finally, Study 4 confirms the role of
nostalgia by demonstrating that generational differences in nostalgia
triggered by retro-innovation can affect how mortality anxiety impacts
innovation adoption.
51
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
3. Study 1
3.1. Design and procedure
Study 1 was an initial test of the prediction that mortality anxiety
has a detrimental impact on attitude toward product innovation
through state nostalgia. It used a 2 (mortality anxiety vs. control) × 2
(product innovation: innovative product vs. noninnovative product)
design. Two hundred and one nonstudent individuals living in the
United Kingdom were recruited through Clickworker, a large crowd-
sourcing platform. The participants received a fixed monetary com-
pensation of $2. An attention check was embedded in the study (“Please
select ‘Totally disagree’ for this item”). The amount of time each re-
spondent took to complete the survey and the respondents' IP addresses
were reviewed to control the data quality. Four participants were ex-
cluded from further analysis because they failed the attention check,
and two participants whose IP addresses were not located in the United
Kingdom were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 195 participants
(100 females, Mage = 35 years, SDage = 10.92) (see Table 3 for demo-
graphics).
The participants were told they would take part in unrelated studies.
Following the procedure of Das, Bushman, Bezemer, Kerkhof, and
Vermeulen (2009), the participants randomly watched a short video
about terrorism (mortality anxiety condition) or about the Olympic
Games (control condition). The participants were then exposed to a
press release presenting an upcoming smartphone, Honor Y. In the in-
novative product condition, the product was presented as “a holo-
graphic, flexible phone with an OLED display that's a breath of life into
the future of smartphones”. In the noninnovative product condition, the
product was described as “a good, classic smartphone” (Appendix A).
No visual support was presented to avoid manipulating other product
features. The participants then filled out a 10-item Positive and Nega-
tive Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Thompson, 2007) to measure the par-
ticipants' mood and to introduce a distraction measure, as mortality
anxiety salience effects mainly occur after a short period of delay
(Arndt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Simon, 1997; Fransen
et al., 2008). Then, following prior research on mortality anxiety
(Greenberg et al., 1994; Schimel, Hayes, Williams, & Jahrig, 2007), the
participants were asked to complete a death-thoughts accessibility
measure consisting of 16 word fragments. Five of the fragments could
be completed with a death-related or neutral word: BUR_ED (buried/
burned), COFF_ _ (coffin/coffee), KI_ _ ED (killed/kissed), M_R_ER
(murder/marker), and SK_LL (skull/skill). The following items were all
measured on a seven-point scale and were drawn from prior research.
First, the participants answered questions on attitude toward the pro-
duct (very negative/very positive; very bad/very good; very unfavorable/
very favorable; Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013; α = 0.94) and product in-
novativeness (not at all innovative/very innovative; Calantone, Chan, &
Cui, 2006). Then, they answered items measuring state nostalgia (Right
now, I am feeling quite nostalgic; Right now, I am having nostalgic thoughts;
I feel nostalgic at the moment; Routledge et al., 2011; Zhou, Sedikides,
Wildschut, & Gao, 2008; α = 0.83). The study ended with demographic
questions.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Manipulation checks
Death-thoughts accessibility scores were computed by summing the
total number of word fragments completed using a death-related word
(Schimel et al., 2007). A two-way ANOVA (mortality anxiety and pro-
duct innovation) revealed a significant main effect of mortality anxiety
on death-thoughts accessibility (MAnxiety = 3.12, SD = 1.08 vs.
MControl = 2.04, SD = 1.04, F(1, 191) = 46.75, p < .001, η2 = 0.19). A
separate two-way ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of product
innovation on perceived innovativeness of the product (MInnov = 6.55,
SD = 0.64 vs. MNoInnov = 2.04, SD = 1.47, F(1, 191) = 485.30,
B. Boeuf Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60

Fig. 2. Interaction Effect of Mortality Anxiety and Product Innovation on Attitude toward the Product.

p < .001, η2 = 0.71). No other effect was significant (all p > .1). Fi- (all p > .1). Mediation analysis using Hayes PROCESS Model 4 based
nally, analysis of variance on the positive and negative items of the on a bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 resamples (Hayes, 2017)
PANAS indicated that the participants' mood states did not differ across (mortality anxiety and control were coded “1” and “0”, respectively)
conditions (all p > .1). indicated that state nostalgia mediated the relationship between mor-
tality anxiety and attitude toward the message (Β = −0.38, SE = 0.14,
3.2.2. Test of the predictions 95% CI = [−0.67; −0.12]). The direct effect was not significant
Participants' age and gender were used as covariates in all analyses (Β = 0.38, SE = 0.22, 95% CI = [−0.06; 0.83]) (Table 5). Overall,
to rule out their influence on the study results. In particular, they were these results support H2a and H2b.
used as covariates of both the dependent variables and the mediators in
the mediation analyses. Since they were nonsignificant, these variables 3.3. Discussion
were dropped from the reported analyses.
A two-way ANOVA confirmed a significant interaction effect be- Study 1 replicates prior findings that mortality anxiety positively
tween mortality anxiety and product innovation on attitude toward the
product (F(1, 191) = 13.96, p < .001, η2 = 0.06) (Fig. 2, Table 4). In Table 5
line with H1, whereas a positive effect of mortality anxiety on attitude Mediation results on attitude toward the product.
toward the noninnovative product was observed
Mediator State nostalgia
(MNoInnovAnxiety = 4.46, SD = 1.27 vs. MNoInnovControl = 4.01,
SD = 1.02, Δ = 0.45, t(97) = 1.95, p = .05), the results identified a Β SE t
detrimental impact of mortality anxiety on attitude toward the in-
Constant 3.51 ⁎⁎⁎
0.12 27.40
novative product (MInnovAnxiety = 5.02, SD = 1.24 vs.
Mortality anxiety 1.69⁎⁎⁎ 0.17 9.95
MInnovControl = 5.84, SD = 0.87, Δ = −0.82, t(94) = −3.51, Total R2 0.33⁎⁎⁎
p < .001).
Dependent variable Attitude toward the product
As predicted by H2a, a two-way ANOVA yielded a significant po- Β SE t
sitive main effect of mortality anxiety on state nostalgia (F(1, Constant 5.58⁎⁎⁎ 0.30 18.25
191) = 101.35, p < .001, η2 = 0.34). No other effect was significant State nostalgia −0.22⁎⁎ 0.07 −2.93
Mortality anxiety 0.38 0.22 1.69
Total R2 0.04⁎⁎
Table 4
Interaction effect of mortality anxiety and product innovation on attitude to- Direct effect
ward the product. Β SE LLCI ULCI
0.38 0.22 −0.06 0.83
Source of variation df Mean squares F statistic Partial η2
Indirect effect
Intercept 1 4416.29 3392.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.94 Β SE LLCI ULCI
Mortality anxiety (A) 1 1.32 1.02 0.00 −0.38 0.14 −0.67 −0.12
Product innovation (B) 1 67.74 52.03⁎⁎⁎ 0.21
A×B 1 18.17 13.96⁎⁎⁎ 0.06 Note: LLCI = lower limit 95% confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit 95%
Error 191 1.30 confidence interval.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001. ⁎⁎
p < .05.

52
B. Boeuf
Table 6
Effects of mortality anxiety on consumers response to product innovation.
MANOVA results
Source of variation df Error
Intercept 2 100
Mortality anxiety 2 100
Univariate results
Attitude
Source of variation df Mean squares F statistic
Intercept 1 2003.89 1289.67⁎⁎⁎
Mortality anxiety 1 13.53 8.71⁎⁎
Error 101 1.55
⁎⁎⁎
p ≤ .001.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
affects consumers' response to noninnovative products (e.g., Das et al.,
2014). It extends those results by showing that this pattern is reversed
for innovative products: mortality anxiety negatively affects attitude
toward product innovation. In addition, the study identifies the med-
iating effect of state nostalgia. These results indicate that by activating a
momentary sentimental longing for one's past, mortality anxiety trig-
gers a backward-looking mindset that reduces new product adoption.
Building on the literature on innovation resistance, Study 1 shows that
mortality anxiety creates a psychological predisposition toward the past
that could lead to change resistance (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2015).
The current research has yet to provide more evidence on the pro-
cess explaining the results. Specifically, it was predicted that the re-
assuring perception of reality (state nostalgia) activated by mortality
anxiety is in conflict with the perceived risks and uncertainties asso-
ciated with product innovation (see the rationale leading to H3). To
that end, the goal of Study 2 is twofold: 1) it replicates the effects
identified in Study 1, and 2) it investigates the role of consumer in-
novativeness on the measured effects to provide more evidence that
state nostalgia negatively affects innovation adoption because it is in
conflict with the risks associated with newness.
4. Study 2
4.1. Design and procedure
One hundred and three graduate students participated in Study 2
(55 females, Mage = 23.71 years, SDage = 1.61), which employed a two-
cell design (mortality anxiety vs. control). This sample was coherent
with the objective of investigating the role of consumer innovativeness,
as young adult consumers generally display high levels of consumer
innovativeness (Rašković, Ding, Škare, Došen, & Žabkar, 2016).
Participants in the mortality anxiety condition responded to two
open-ended questions from previous research (e.g., Greenberg et al.,
1994): “Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your
own death arouses in you” and “Jot down, as specifically as you can,
what you think will happen to you physically as you die and once you
are physically dead”. In the control condition, similar questions were
asked with respect to dental pain (e.g., Ferraro, Shiv, & Bettman, 2005).
Then, following Greenberg et al. (1994), the participants read an ex-
cerpt from “The Growing Stone”, a short story by Camus (1957). to
create a distraction. Next, a 3-minute video presented BIGeI, a family
robot with mobility, 3D vision, voice programming, and active per-
ception. This product was selected for its a priori high level of in-
novation and its embodiment of new technology. It was presented as a
project recently funded on the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter, with
a market launch planned in the coming year. None of the participants
53
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
Wilks' λ F Partial η2
0.07 645.10⁎⁎⁎ 0.92
0.88 6.30⁎⁎ 0.11
Purchase Intention
Partial η2 Mean squares F statistic Partial η2
0.92 1000.81 536.11⁎⁎⁎ 0.84
0.07 20.53 11.00⁎⁎⁎ 0.09
1.86
declared that they knew the product.
First, the participants answered questions on attitude toward the
product (α = 0.90), purchase intention (unlikely/likely; improbable/
probable; impossible/possible; Kulviwat et al., 2007; α = 0.94), and pro-
duct innovativeness. Then, they completed a death-thoughts accessi-
bility measure and answered items measuring state nostalgia (α = 0.96)
and consumer innovativeness (In general, I am among the first in my circle
of friends to buy a new technological product when it appears; In general, if I
hear that a new technological product is available, I am interested enough to
gather information; In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to
know the newest technological products, Heidenreich & Spieth, 2013;
α = 0.82). The questionnaire concluded with sociodemographic ques-
tions.
4.2. Results
4.2.1. Manipulation checks
A one-way ANOVA using death-thoughts accessibility as the de-
pendent variable revealed significant differences between the two
conditions: death-thoughts accessibility was higher in the mortality
anxiety condition than in the control condition (MAnxiety = 3.19,
SD = 0.87 vs. MControl = 2.16, SD = 1.42, F(1, 101) = 18.67,
p < .001, η2 = 0.15). Additionally, the product was perceived as
highly innovative with no differences across conditions (F(1,
101) = 1.02, p = .31; M = 5.57, SD = 1.15).
4.2.2. Test of the predictions
As in Study 1, participants' gender and age were dropped from the
reported analyses since they did not statistically influence the study
results, including the moderated meditation analyses.
In line with H2a, a one-way ANOVA yielded a significant main
positive effect of mortality anxiety on state nostalgia (F(1,
101) = 13.30, p < .001, η2 = 0.11). In addition, as predicted by H1, a
one-way MANOVA yielded a significant effect of mortality anxiety on
attitude toward the product and purchase intention (Wilks' λ = 0.88, F
(2, 100) = 6.30, p = .003, η2 = 0.11) (Table 6). In particular, mortality
anxiety negatively affected attitude (MAnxiety = 4.06, SD = 1.18 vs.
MControl = 4.79, SD = 1.29, F (1,101) = 8.71, p = .004, η2 = 0.07) and
purchase intention (MAnxiety = 2.68, SD = 1.30 vs. MControl = 3.57,
SD = 1.41, F (1,101) = 11.00, p = .001, η2 = 0.09).
Additionally, it was predicted that the mediation of state nostalgia
was moderated by consumer innovativeness (H3). To test this effect,
analyses were conducted using the PROCESS Macro Model 14. The
mortality anxiety condition was coded “1”, and the control condition
was coded “0”. State nostalgia and consumer innovativeness were
mean-centered (Aiken & West, 1991).
B. Boeuf
Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals were generated for the
conditional indirect effects at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th
percentiles of consumer innovativeness based on 5000 bootstrap sam-
ples. These percentiles were used to represent the very low (10th), low
(25th), moderate (50th), high (75th) and very high (90th) levels of
consumer innovativeness. This approach has been recommended for
examining moderated mediation models (Hayes, 2017). As predicted,
the conditional indirect effect of mortality anxiety on response to in-
novation through state nostalgia decreased with level of consumer in-
novativeness (index of moderated mediation: attitude: Β = 0.12,
SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.01; 0.30]; intention: Β = 0.13, SE = 0.07, 95%
CI = [0.006; 0.32]). In particular, the conditional indirect effects were
significant only for respondents with very low (attitude: CI
95% = [−0.87; −0.10]; intention: CI 95% = [−0.89; −0.09]) and
low (attitude: CI 95% = [−0.54; −0.04]; intention: CI 95% = [−0.52;
−0.01]) levels of innovativeness. Conversely, the conditional indirect
effects were not significant for respondents with very high (attitude: CI
95% = [−0.21; 0.45]; intention: CI 95% = [−0.20; 0.55]), high (at-
titude: CI 95% = [−0.26; 0.27]; intention: CI 95% = [−0.23; 0.37]),
and moderate (attitude: CI 95% = [−0.36; 0.06]; intention: CI
95% = [−0.33; 0.14]) levels of innovativeness. The results of these
analyses (Fig. 3, Table 7) confirm that consumer innovativeness pre-
vents the mediation effect of state nostalgia on the relationship between
mortality anxiety and consumers' response to product innovation (H3).
As expected, additional analyses using the PROCESS Macro Model 7
did not yield any significant impact of consumer innovativeness on the
mediating effect of state nostalgia.
4.3. Discussion
Study 2 provides convergent evidence that mortality anxiety trig-
gers a backward-looking mindset that favors resistance to changes. The
moderating effect of consumer innovativeness validates that state nos-
talgia is in conflict with the perceived risks and uncertainties associated
with product innovation (Hirunyawipada & Paswan, 2006). These
findings contribute to the literature on mortality anxiety by identifying
a potential inhibitor of the effects of mortality anxiety on innovation
adoption. Given that consumer innovativeness reduces the conflict be-
tween state nostalgia and newness, it may prevent the detrimental
impact of existential threats on innovation adoption.
In Studies 1 and 2, state nostalgia was measured after the activation
Fig. 3. Moderated Mediation of State Nostalgia on Attitude and Purchase Intention toward Innovative Products
Note: Att: Attitude; Int: Purchase Intention
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
54
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
of existential threats. The results were interpreted as indicating that
state nostalgia was in conflict with innovation. To bolster confidence in
this interpretation, Studies 3 and 4 consider the association between
product innovation and nostalgia by considering retro-innovation
(Castellano et al., 2013). In addition, Study 3 introduces procedural
changes and manipulates the level of association between the product
and nostalgia (innovation vs. retro-innovation), offering the opportu-
nity to confirm the role of nostalgia on the observed effects.
Retro-innovative products are innovative reinterpretations of old
products, as illustrated by Adidas Originals, the new Beetle from
Volkswagen, and rebooted movies (e.g., Ben-Hur, The Magnificent
Seven). Retro-innovation is mainly based on nostalgia because it is
connected to favorable memories of a past time (Cartwright, Besson, &
Maubisson, 2013). Accordingly, it was reasoned that, as retro-innova-
tion is associated with the past, the backward-looking mindset triggered
by mortality anxiety should positively impact attitude toward retro-
innovative products.
H4. Mortality anxiety has a positive impact on attitude toward retro-
innovative products.
5. Study 3
5.1. Design and procedure
A 2 (mortality anxiety vs. control) × 2 (association with the past:
innovation vs. retro-innovation) mixed design with association with the
past as a within-subjects factor was used in Study 3 to create compar-
isons in the participants' mind, as in a real market situation. Based on a
pretest (N = 34), two upcoming home video game consoles developed
by Nintendo, the Switch and the NES Classic Edition, were selected as
innovative and retro-innovative products, respectively. Although both
products were similarly innovative (MSwitch = 5.35, SD = 1.15 vs.
MNES = 4.97, SD = 1.05, Δ = 0.38, t(33) = 1.68, p = .05), the evoked
nostalgia, i.e., nostalgia triggered by a product (Pascal, Sprott, &
Muehling, 2002; Switch: α = 0.97; NES: α = 0.96), was significantly
higher for the NES Classic Edition than for the Switch (MNES = 5.75,
SD = 1.26 vs. MSwitch = 3.42, SD = 1.38, Δ = 2.33, t(33) = 7.41,
p < .001). These findings confirmed the effectiveness of the manip-
ulation of the association between the product and a nostalgic past.
The data were collected by means of a self-administered
B. Boeuf Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60

Table 7
Moderated mediation results on consumers response to product innovation.
Mediator State nostalgia

Β SE t

Constant 2.57⁎⁎⁎
0.22 11.57
Mortality anxiety 1.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.32 3.67
Total R2 0.11⁎⁎⁎

Dependent variables Attitude Purchase intention

Β SE t Β SE t

Constant 5.50⁎⁎⁎
0.63 8.63 4.03 ⁎⁎⁎
0.68 5.87
State nostalgia (A) −0.42⁎ 0.16 −2.59 −0.43⁎ 0.17 −2.45
Mortality anxiety −0.60⁎ 0.25 −2.38 −0.81⁎⁎ 0.27 −2.99
Consumer innovativeness (B) −0.13 0.17 −0.81 −0.08 0.18 −0.46
A×B 0.10⁎ 0.04 2.31 0.11⁎ 0.04 2.40
Total R2 0.18⁎⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎

Direct effect

Β SE LLCI ULCI Β SE LLCI ULCI

−0.60 0.25 −1.10 −0.10 −0.81 0.27 −1.35 −0.27

Conditional indirect effects at values of consumer innovativeness

Β SE LLCI ULCI Β SE LLCI ULCI

10th percentiles −0.38 0.18 −0.87 −0.10 −0.38 0.19 −0.89 −0.09
25th percentiles −0.22 0.12 −0.54 −0.04 −0.20 0.12 −0.52 −0.01
50th percentiles −0.10 0.10 −0.36 0.06 −0.06 0.11 −0.33 0.14
75th percentiles 0.01 0.13 −0.26 0.27 0.07 0.15 −0.23 0.37
90th percentiles 0.10 0.16 −0.21 0.45 0.16 0.19 −0.20 0.55

Note: LLCI = lower limit 95% confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit 95% confidence interval.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎
p < .05.

questionnaire delivered at the participants' homes in London, UK.
Streets were randomly selected. Two experimenters knocked on the
door of every second dwelling. Ninety-one individuals (53 females;
Mage = 36.82 years, SDage = 11.75) agreed to participate in this study
with no monetary compensation (see Table 3 for demographics). Due to
lower interest in the topic of the questionnaire, older individuals were
underrepresented (> 45 years old: 25.3%). The final response rate was
45.5%. These procedures are in conformity with the ethical rules and
regulations of school authorities and follow the protocol of the In-
stitutional Review Board.
The participants were randomly asked to answer the essay questions
used in Study 2. This was followed by a word search distraction task
(see Juhl et al., 2010). Then, the participants read a short description of
the Switch and the NES Classic Edition. While the former was presented
as a hybrid video game console offering the possibility for players to
continue their home console experience on the go while traveling or
commuting, the latter was introduced as a miniature, digital replica of
the 1985 home video game console that for the first time ever offers
digital recreations of 30 games from the vintage NES library (Appendix
B). Next, the participants completed a death-thoughts accessibility
measure, followed by items measuring attitude (Switch: α = 0.96; NES:
α = 0.99), product innovation and familiarity (I am familiar, Keller,
1993). To reduce any potential carryover effects, the order of the
product presented first (the Switch or the NES) was randomly assigned
to participants within each between-subjects condition. No effects of
the order of the products were found in the analyses. The questionnaire
ended with two items measuring product category involvement (Video
games interest me a lot; Video games are very important to me; α = 0.88;
Steenkamp, van Heerde, & Geyskens, 2010), sociodemographic ques-
tions, and one item that confirmed that none of the participants had
identified the experiment's actual goal (Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, &
Tanner, 2008).
5.2. Results
5.2.1. Manipulation checks
A one-way ANOVA yielded significant differences between the
mortality anxiety condition and the control condition on death-
thoughts accessibility (MAnxiety = 2.77, SD = 1.18 vs. MControl = 2.06,
SD = 1.10, F(1, 89) = 8.81, p = .004, η2 = 0.09). A one-way MANOVA
yielded no significant effect of mortality anxiety on product innovation
(MSwitch = 5.30, SD = 1.26 vs. MNES = 5.08, SD = 1.37, Wilks'
λ = 0.97, F (2, 88) = 1.23, p = .29). Both products were considered
highly innovative.

55
B. Boeuf
Table 8
Interaction effect of mortality anxiety and association with the past on attitude toward the product.
Source of variation df
Association with the past 1 14.08
Association with the past × mortality anxiety 1 18.41
Error 89
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
5.2.2. Test of the predictions
Because none of the comparisons involving participants' age and
gender or product familiarity and product category involvement were
significant, these variables were dropped from the reported analyses.
A mixed ANOVA was carried out. Box's test for equality of covar-
iance matrices was not significant (p = .46), and Levene's test for
equality of variances was not significant (Switch: F(1, 89) = 0.39,
p = .53; NES: F(1, 89) = 0.22, p = .63). Therefore, the assumptions of
homogeneity and equal variance were met. The results indicated a
significant two-way interaction between mortality anxiety and asso-
ciation with the past on attitude toward the product (F(1, 89) = 17.25,
p < .001, η2 = 0.16). In line with the predictions, while mortality
anxiety negatively impacted attitude toward the innovative product
(MControl = 5.45, SD = 1.17 vs. MAnxiety = 4.82 SD = 1.41, Δ = 0.63, t
(89) = 2.32, p = .02), it had a positive effect on attitude toward the
retro-innovative product (MControl = 5.37, SD = 1.21 vs.
MAnxiety = 6.01, SD = 1.17, Δ = −0.64, t(89) = −2.54, p = .01).
These findings, presented in Table 8, support H4.
5.3. Discussion
Study 3 extends the previous studies in an important way. Although
Studies 1 and 2 examined the mediating effect of state nostalgia on the
relationship between mortality anxiety and innovation adoption, Study
3 tested whether the association of an innovative product with the past
could impact the effects of mortality anxiety on innovation adoption.
The results show that the detrimental impact of mortality anxiety af-
fects only innovative products that are not associated with the past.
Conversely, Study 3 identifies a positive effect of mortality anxiety on
attitude toward retro-innovative products. This is in line with the pre-
diction that the negative effect of mortality anxiety on innovation
adoption would derive from the triggering of state nostalgia as a de-
fense mechanism against mortality anxiety. Indeed, these findings
support the prediction that to protect themselves from a menacing fu-
ture associated with death, individuals will adopt a backward-looking
mindset unfavorable to innovative products but favorable to products
associated with the past, including retro-innovation.
However, it is undeniable that the products that evoke feelings of
nostalgia typically differ with age (Loveland, Smeesters, & Mandel,
2010). Study 3 measured consumers' response to a retro-innovative
product associated with the 1980s/1990s, thus likely to trigger nos-
talgia for younger consumers. Consequently, the underrepresentation of
older respondents may have affected the results by failing to provide
evidence of the potential effect of age, thereby limiting their general-
izability. Replicating the findings of Study 3 in an older generation and
testing whether response varies with age will thus provide a particu-
larly stringent test of the robustness of the observed effects.
6. Study 4
It was reasoned that if state nostalgia explains the conflict with
product innovation, then when the innovative product triggers nos-
talgia, it would prevent any conflict and positively affect evaluation.
56
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
Mean squares F statistic Partial η2
13.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.12
17.25⁎⁎⁎ 0.16
1.06
Because nostalgia is mainly associated with childhood consumption
experiences (Loveland et al., 2010), a 1970s-themed retro-innovative
product is more likely to evoke nostalgia in consumers over 35 years of
age. Younger consumers may thus not be impacted by the nostalgic
features of the products and as such perceive it as innovation (vs. retro-
innovation). To test this prediction, a retro smartphone screen magni-
fier, a product that increases the size of a smartphone display, whose
design evokes television sets in the 1970s, was chosen to reduce the
potential role of product category involvement and familiarity.
6.1. Pretest
A pretest examined the generational differences in nostalgia trig-
gered by a product. Sixty-two individuals living in the United Kingdom
were recruited through Clickworker (36 females; Mage = 34.82 years,
SDage = 10.50). They were exposed to a picture of a retro smartphone
screen magnifier and a short description of the product. The description
underlined the innovative features of the product and its association
with the 1970s: “this smartphone screen magnifier takes whatever you're
watching on your smartphone, blows it up to three times its original size, and
displays it on an eight-inch screen… in 3D, with HD zoom optical tech-
nology. (…) Transform your room into a mini 1970s living room with this
smartphone magnifier” (Appendix C). The participants were then asked
to answer questions on evoked nostalgia, product innovativeness, and
whether they remembered their family owning a similarly designed TV
set (yes/no). The analyses showed that all of the respondents aged over
35 years answered “yes” to the last question. Accordingly, the partici-
pants under 36 years were categorized as young consumers, and those
over 35 years were categorized as older consumers, coded “0” and “1”,
respectively.
A one-way MANOVA with state nostalgia, product innovativeness
and TV ownership as the dependent variables yielded a significant main
effect of age cohort (Wilks' λ = 0.40, F (3, 58) = 27.98, p < .001,
η2 = 0.59). Univariate analyses confirmed a positive impact of age co-
hort on evoked nostalgia (MYoung = 2.79, SD = 1.51 vs. MOlder = 4.91,
SD = 1.16, F (1,60) = 35.58, p < .001, η2 = 0.37) and TV ownership
(MYoung = 0.25, SD = 0.43 vs. MOlder = 1.00, SD = 0.00, F
(1,60) = 75.48, p < .001, η2 = 0.55) but no impact on product in-
novativeness (p > .1; M = 4.48). The results confirmed that the pro-
duct was appropriate to test the impact of mortality anxiety on an in-
novative product that was a) not associated with nostalgia for
consumers under 36 years of age and b) strongly associated with nos-
talgia for consumers over 35 years of age.
6.2. Design and procedure
A 2 (mortality anxiety vs. control) × 2 (age cohort: young, i.e.,
under 36 years vs. older, i.e., over 35 years, consumers) between-sub-
jects design was used. A total of 124 adult individuals living in the
United Kingdom were recruited through Clickworker. They received a
fixed amount of monetary compensation of 2$. Based on the same at-
tention check used in Study 1, two participants were excluded from
further analysis, resulting in a final sample of 122 participants (66
B. Boeuf
Table 9
Interaction effect of mortality anxiety and age cohort toward the product.
Source of variation df Mean squares F statistic Partial η2
Intercept 1 1552.07 537.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.82
Mortality anxiety (A) 1 0.007 0.002 0.00
Age cohort (B) 1 2.40 0.83 0.21
A×B 1 24.33 8.42⁎⁎ 0.06
Error 118 2.88
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
females; Mage = 37.11 years, SDage = 12.74; see Table 3 for demo-
graphics).
The respondents answered the same essay questions on either dental
pain (control condition) or death (mortality anxiety condition) used in
Studies 2 and 3, followed by a word search distraction task. Then, the
participants were exposed to the picture and short description of the
retro smartphone screen magnifier, followed by items measuring atti-
tude toward the product (α = 0.98), familiarity of the product and in-
volvement with smartphones (α = 0.96). The survey ended with so-
ciodemographic questions. To avoid any demand effect, contrary to the
previous studies, no death-thoughts accessibility or nostalgia measures
were used in this study.
6.3. Results
Because they did not influence the study results, participants' gender
and income and involvement with smartphones were dropped from the
reported analyses.
A two-factor ANOVA yielded a significant interaction effect between
mortality anxiety and age cohort (F(1, 118) = 8.42, p = .004,
η2 = 0.06). In line with the prediction, the attitude of young consumers,
who are unlikely to have nostalgic memories of the 1970s, was nega-
tively impacted by mortality anxiety (MControl = 4.16, SD = 1.86 vs.
MAnxiety = 3.28 SD = 1.51, Δ = 0.88, t(64) = 2.11, p < .03).
Conversely, the attitude of older consumers, whose nostalgic memories
should be associated with the 1970s, was positively impacted by mor-
tality anxiety (MControl = 2.98, SD = 1.96 vs. MAnxiety = 3.90
SD = 1.44, Δ = −0.92, t(64) = −1.99, p = .05) (Table 9).
6.4. Discussion
Prior research has discussed that because interest in retro-innova-
tion is associated with a function of nostalgia, it depends on a particular
age cohort (Cartwright et al., 2013). Study 4 built on that rationale to
test the impact of nostalgia on the relationship between mortality an-
xiety and innovation adoption. In line with the findings of Study 3, it
shows that mortality anxiety has a positive (negative) impact on attitude
toward innovation when the new product is (not) associated with nos-
talgic memories. Study 4 partially supports the hypothesis that mor-
tality anxiety has a positive impact on attitude toward retro-innovative
products (H4) by demonstrating that this prediction is true only for
consumers subject to nostalgia evoked by retro-innovation.
Overall, Studies 3 and 4 extend prior work that has argued that the
success of retro-innovation depends on how the celebration of the past
can represent a way of looking forward (Castellano et al., 2013). The
present findings suggest that a product's connection to nostalgic
memories can prevent the negative effect of innovative features in a
context of existential threats. By embodying past values and norms,
retro-innovation may securely embed individuals in a reassuring sense
of meaning and, as such, participate in the (nostalgic) defense of an
individual's worldview against mortality anxiety. This finding is in line
with recent research that has documented that vintage consumption
57
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
mentally connects the past, present and future (Sarial-Abi, Vohs,
Hamilton, & Ulqinaku, 2017).
7. General discussion
Together, the four experimental studies provide clear evidence that
mortality anxiety negatively affects consumers' response to product
innovation by triggering state nostalgia. Throughout the variations in
the experimental procedure, the pattern of results remained similar,
suggesting that the effect is reliable and robust.
7.1. Theoretical contributions
The present work adds to the growing body of literature on ex-
istential threats and the literature on innovation adoption by showing
that mortality anxiety can inhibit new product adoption. The current
study contributes to these streams of research in four important ways.
First, while prior research has consistently documented that mor-
tality anxiety leads to indulging (e.g., Das et al., 2014), the current
work calls into question the generalizability of this effect by identifying
for the first time a negative impact of mortality anxiety on attitude and
purchase intention toward innovative products.
Second, the present research shows, for the first time, that innova-
tion adoption can be hampered by state nostalgia. By triggering state
nostalgia, mortality anxiety activates a backward-looking mindset that
acts as a barrier to innovation adoption. Given that state nostalgia
mitigates threats to meaning (Routledge et al., 2012), it acts as a
worldview defense strategy that is beneficial for the evaluation of
noninnovative products but detrimental for the evaluation of in-
novative products. While Van Tonder (2017) showed that trait nos-
talgia could prevent innovation adoption, the research findings provide
evidence of a similar effect for state nostalgia. Given that state nostalgia
manifests independently of trait nostalgias (Sedikides & Wildschut,
2018), this finding indicates that nostalgia may affect innovation
adoption on a larger scale than previously considered. Even individuals
who are moderately nostalgic may be subject to state nostalgia as a
response to existential threats and may consequently resist changes.
The positive effect of mortality anxiety on nostalgia-related new pro-
ducts, or retro-innovation, provides more evidence of the impact of
state nostalgia on consumers' response to innovation. This finding offers
a glimpse into how mortality anxiety impacts the various facets of the
consumption of new products by contrasting the effect of the awareness
of mortality on innovative and retro-innovative products.
Third, the current results extend prior research on adoption theory
and innovation resistance by identifying mortality anxiety as a con-
sumer-specific factor of innovation resistance. Supporting this idea, the
findings suggest that mortality anxiety activates self-protection me-
chanisms that are in conflict with the perceived risks and uncertainties
associated with product innovation (Conchar et al., 2004; Juhl et al.,
2010). Since mortality anxiety triggers psychological processes (i.e.,
state nostalgia) prior to the evaluation of a new product, resulting in an
unconscious form of resistance, it may be considered a type of passive
innovation resistance (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2015). More specifi-
cally, mortality anxiety could be regarded as situational passive re-
sistance, as it favors a preference for the current status quo through
state nostalgia (Heidenreich et al., 2016).
Finally, the moderating effect of consumer innovativeness on the
relationship between state nostalgia and consumers' response to new
products suggests that consumer innovativeness could prevent the
psychological conflict between self-defense mechanisms and the un-
certainties associated with innovation. Given that highly innovative
consumers are less sensitive to the uncertainties and instability related
to new products (Hirunyawipada & Paswan, 2006), this finding extends
research on mortality anxiety by identifying a potential inhibitor of the
B. Boeuf Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60

effects of existential threats on innovation adoption. cohort.

7.2. Managerial implications 7.3. Limitations and recommendations for future research

The documentation of a negative impact of mortality anxiety on
innovation adoption is not only of theoretical interest but also of
practical value. Indeed, given that the current political and media en-
vironment and marketing content often activate mortality anxiety
(Fransen et al., 2008), the present research offers important contribu-
tions to better understand the determinants of innovation adoption.
Through the activation of the awareness of one's own mortality, such
environmental stimuli must be considered to account for the high
failure rates of new products (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2016). The
present research suggests that innovation adoption may be affected by
terror attacks, national conflicts and economic recessions. Because such
events threaten consumers' sense of life meaning, they may favor re-
sistance to newness. In short, managers should avoid communicating
about innovative features in a death-related environment and instead
contextualize new products in consumers' (past or present) habits to
reduce the conflict between existential threats and newness. As an ex-
ample, after a terror attack, marketing communications should convey
the reassuring qualities and values of new products and reduce em-
phasis on disruption to provide consumers with a sense of security and
protection against existential threats.
These findings also highlight that nostalgia can prevent this detri-
mental impact of innovation on consumers' response. By including a
number of nostalgic features in a new product, firms may take ad-
vantage of threatening environmental stimuli and arouse interest in
retro-innovation. Firms can communicate about product features that
create a stable and reassuring perception in relation to cultural values
and norms to mitigate the detrimental impact of mortality anxiety. In
particular, firms should target the market segment that is most likely to
associate the product with nostalgic memories, such as a specific age
Several limitations of this paper exist and point to future research
opportunities. The first limitation is that younger consumers were
overrepresented in the samples. Because younger consumers are more
inclined toward product innovation (Rašković et al., 2016), future in-
vestigations could determine whether the detrimental effects of mor-
tality anxiety on innovation adoption is stronger for older consumers.
Second, reminders of death, such as news reports on natural dis-
asters or wars, exert short-term effects on existential threats (Lykins,
Segerstrom, Averill, Evans, & Kemeny, 2007). When individuals are
subject to mortality anxiety over a longer period of time, consumers
may experience more important psychological changes, as stated in
posttraumatic growth theory (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). As such, the
empirical studies lacked the true longitudinal design necessary to cap-
ture the full duration of the effects of mortality anxiety on product
innovation.
Third, the four studies could be criticized for not measuring actual
sales, and the participants' responses could be questioned with regard to
whether they were truly analogous to real shopping situations. Future
research might aim to measure actual sales of innovative products
following a death-related event.
Finally, the present exploration was restricted to highly innovative
technological products. A more nuanced view of product innovation,
including different types and levels of newness, warrants future atten-
tion to extend the understanding of how mortality anxiety affects in-
novation adoption.
Declarations of interest
None.

Appendix A. Study 1 stimuli

Noninnovative conditions:
Honor unveiled its new smartphone to the world during a media event Tuesday in San Francisco, California. The Honor Y will be launched in
Summer 2017.
The Honor Y has a number of the same key features as the previous Honor phones: an aluminum body and glass case, a strong battery life, and a
good camera. It sounds like a good classic smartphone, as Honor has proven that it can make pretty good devices.
Innovative conditions:
Honor unveiled its new smartphone to the world during a media event Tuesday in San Francisco, California. The Honor Y will be launched in
Summer 2017.
The Honor Y is a holographic, flexible phone with an OLED display that's a breath of life into the future of smartphones. For the hologram to work
without 3D glasses, the phone's display is covered by > 16,000 fisheye lenses that bend the light from the screen.

Appendix B. Study 3 stimuli

Innovation:
The Nintendo Switch is an upcoming hybrid video game console developed by Nintendo. The main unit is connected to a television display
through a docking station, from which it can be removed and used as a portable console. Players will continue their home console experience on the
go while traveling or commuting.
Retro-innovation:
The NES Classic Edition is an upcoming miniature, digital replica of the 1985 home video game console developed by Nintendo. The console
includes, for the first time ever, digital recreations of 30 games from the vintage NES library, including Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda
series.

Appendix C. Study 4 stimuli

This smartphone screen magnifier takes whatever you're watching on your smartphone, blows it up to three times its original size, and displays it
on an eight-inch screen… in 3D, with HD zoom optical technology. Compatible with iPhone and Android. But it isn't your average monochrome,
boring flat screen.
Transform your room into a mini 1970s living room with this smartphone magnifier.

58
B. Boeuf
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Simon, L. (1997). Suppression,
accessibility of death-related thoughts, and cultural worldview defense: Exploring the
psychodynamics of terror management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(1), 5–18.
Arndt, J., Landau, M. J., Vail, K. E., III, & Vess, M. (2013). An edifice for enduring per-
sonal value: A terror management perspective on the human quest for multilevel
meaning. In K. D. Markman, T. Proulx, & M. J. Lindberg (Eds.). The psychology of
meaning (pp. 49–69). New York, NY: APA Books.
Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The urge to splurge: A terror
management account of materialism and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 14(3), 198–212.
Arts, J. W., Frambach, R. T., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2011). Generalizations on consumer in-
novation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), 134–144.
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York, NY: Free Press.
Burke, B. L., Kosloff, S., & Landau, M. J. (2013). Death goes to the polls: A meta-analysis
of mortality salience effects on political attitudes. Political Psychology, 34(2),
183–200.
Caerteling, J. S., Halman, J. I., Song, M., Dorée, A. G., & Bij, H. (2013). How relevant is
government championing behavior in technology development? Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30(2), 349–363.
Calantone, R. J., Chan, K., & Cui, A. S. (2006). Decomposing product innovativeness and
its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5),
408–421.
Camus, A. (1957). Exile and the kingdom. New York: Vintage Books.
Cartwright, P. A., Besson, E., & Maubisson, L. (2013). Nostalgia and technology innova-
tion driving retro music consumption. European Journal of Innovation Management,
16(4), 459–494.
Castellano, S., Ivanova, O., Adnane, M., Safraou, I., & Schiavone, F. (2013). Back to the
future: Adoption and diffusion of innovation in retro-industries. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 16(4), 385–404.
Chartrand, T. L., Huber, J., Shiv, B., & Tanner, R. J. (2008). Nonconscious goals and
consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 189–201.
Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Commercializing technological innovation: Learning
from failures in high-tech markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(4),
437–454.
Claudy, M. C., Garcia, R., & O'Driscoll, A. (2015). Consumer resistance to innovation—A
behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4),
528–544.
Conchar, M. P., Zinkhan, G. M., Peters, C., & Olavarrieta, S. (2004). An integrated fra-
mework for the conceptualization of consumers' perceived-risk processing. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 418–436.
Cotte, J., & Wood, S. L. (2004). Families and innovative consumer behavior: A triadic
analysis of sibling and parental influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 78–86.
Dar-Nimrod, I. (2012). Viewing death on television increases the appeal of advertised
products. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(2), 199–211.
Das, E., Bushman, B. J., Bezemer, M. D., Kerkhof, P., & Vermeulen, I. E. (2009). How
terrorism news reports increase prejudice against outgroups: A terror management
account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 453–459.
Das, E., Duiven, R., Arendsen, J., & Vermeulen, I. (2014). Exploring killer ads: A terror
management account of death in advertisements. Psychology & Marketing, 31(10),
828–842.
Ferraro, R., Shiv, B., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall
die: Effects of mortality salience and self-esteem on self-regulation in consumer
59
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 65–75.
Fransen, M. L., Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Das, E. (2008). Rest in peace? Brand-
induced mortality salience and consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research,
61(10), 1053–1061.
Fransen, M. L., Smeesters, D., & Fennis, B. M. (2011). The role of social presence in
mortality salience effects. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 29–33.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology
and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19(2), 110–132.
Goldsmith, R. E., Freiden, J. B., & Eastman, J. K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue
in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation, 15(10), 601–612.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209–221.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Simon, L., & Breus, M. (1994). Role of con-
sciousness and accessibility of death-related thoughts in mortality salience effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 627.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York City, NY: Guilford Publications.
Heidenreich, S., & Handrich, M. (2015). What about passive innovation resistance?
Investigating adoption-related behavior from a resistance perspective. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 878–903.
Heidenreich, S., & Kraemer, T. (2015). Passive innovation resistance: The curse of in-
novation? Investigating consequences for innovative consumer behavior. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 51, 134–151.
Heidenreich, S., & Kraemer, T. (2016). Innovations—Doomed to fail? Investigating stra-
tegies to overcome passive innovation resistance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 33(3), 277–297.
Heidenreich, S., Kraemer, T., & Handrich, M. (2016). Satisfied and unwilling: Exploring
cognitive and situational resistance to innovations. Journal of Business Research,
69(7), 2440–2447.
Heidenreich, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Why innovations fail—The case of passive and active
innovation resistance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(05), 1–42.
Heidenreich, S., Spieth, P., & Petschnig, M. (2017). Ready, steady, green: Examining the
effectiveness of external policies to enhance the adoption of eco-friendly innovations.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 343–359.
Herzenstein, M., Horsky, S., & Posavac, S. S. (2015). Living with terrorism or withdrawing
in terror: Perceived control and consumer avoidance. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
14(4), 228–236.
Hirunyawipada, T., & Paswan, A. K. (2006). Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk:
Implications for high technology product adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
23(4), 182–198.
Huang, Z. T., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2015). Diverging effects of mortality salience on variety
seeking: The different roles of death anxiety and semantic concept activation. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 112–123.
Huang, Z., Huang, X., & Jiang, Y. (2018). The impact of death-related media information
on consumer value orientation and scope sensitivity. Journal of Marketing Research,
55(3), 432–445.
Jahanmir, S. F., & Cavadas, J. (2018). Factors affecting late adoption of digital innova-
tions. Journal of Business Research, 88, 337–343.
Joachim, V., Spieth, P., & Heidenreich, S. (2018). Active innovation resistance: An em-
pirical study on functional and psychological barriers to innovation adoption in
different contexts. Industrial Marketing Management, 71, 95–107.
Juhl, J., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2010). Fighting the future
with the past: Nostalgia buffers existential threat. Journal of Research in Personality,
44(3), 309–314.
Karande, K., Merchant, A., & Sivakumar, K. (2011). Erratum to: Relationships among time
orientation, consumer innovativeness, and innovative behavior: The moderating role
of product characteristics. AMS review, 1(2), 99–116.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
B. Boeuf
equity. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Kim, S. H., & Park, H. J. (2011). Effects of social influence on consumers' voluntary
adoption of innovations prompted by others. Journal of Business Research, 64(11),
1190–1194.
Kleijnen, M., De Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2004). Consumer adoption of wireless ser-
vices: Discovering the rules, while playing the game. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
18(2), 51–61.
Kleijnen, M., Lee, N., & Wetzels, M. (2009). An exploration of consumer resistance to
innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 344–357.
Krishnan, V., & Ramachandran, K. (2011). Integrated product architecture and pricing for
managing sequential innovation. Management Science, 57(11), 2040–2053.
Kuczmarski, T. D. (2003). What is innovation? And why aren't companies doing more of
it? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(6), 536–541.
Kulviwat, S., Bruner, I. I., Gordon, C., Kumar, A., Nasco, S. A., & Clark, T. (2007). Toward
a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychology & Marketing, 24(12),
1059–1084.
Laukkanen, T. (2016). Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar
service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking. Journal of Business
Research, 69(7), 2432–2439.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Kivijärvi, M., & Laukkanen, P. (2007). Innovation re-
sistance among mature consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 419–427.
Li, G., Zhang, R., & Wang, C. (2015). The role of product originality, usefulness and
motivated consumer innovativeness in new product adoption intentions. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 32(2), 214–223.
Loveland, K. E., Smeesters, D., & Mandel, N. (2010). Still preoccupied with 1995: The
need to belong and preference for nostalgic products. Journal of Consumer Research,
37(3), 393–408.
Lunsford, D. A., & Burnett, M. S. (1992). Marketing product innovations to the elderly:
Understanding the barriers to adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9(4), 53–62.
Lykins, E. L., Segerstrom, S. C., Averill, A. J., Evans, D. R., & Kemeny, M. E. (2007). Goal
shifts following reminders of mortality: Reconciling posttraumatic growth and terror
management theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1088–1099.
Mandel, N., & Heine, S. J. (1999). Terror management and marketing: He who dies with
the most toys wins. ACR North American Advances, 26, 527–532.
Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2018). Consumer resistance to innovation in services: Challenges
and barriers in the internet of things era. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
35(5), 780–807.
Moon, S., Bergey, P. K., Bove, L. L., & Robinson, S. (2016). Message framing and in-
dividual traits in adopting innovative, sustainable products (ISPs): Evidence from
biofuel adoption. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3553–3560.
Park, J., Han, H., & Park, J. (2013). Psychological antecedents and risk on attitudes to-
ward e-customization. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2552–2559.
Pascal, V. J., Sprott, D. E., & Muehling, D. D. (2002). The influence of evoked nostalgia on
consumers' responses to advertising: An exploratory study. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 24(1), 39–47.
Rangan, P., Singh, S. N., Landau, M. J., & Choi, J. (2015). Impact of death-related tele-
vision programming on advertising evaluation. Journal of Advertising, 44(4),
326–337.
Rašković, M., Ding, Z., Škare, V., Došen, Đ. O., & Žabkar, V. (2016). Comparing consumer
innovativeness and ethnocentrism of young-adult consumers. Journal of Business
Research, 69(9), 3682–3686.
Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2004). Terrifying thoughts, terrible materialism?
Contemplations on a terror management account of materialism and consumer be-
havior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 219–224.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism,
existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1),
1–16.
Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2008). A blast from the past: The
terror management function of nostalgia. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
44(1), 132–140.
Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Hart, C. M., Juhl, J., ... Schlotz, W.
(2011). The past makes the present meaningful: Nostalgia as an existential resource.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 638–652.
60
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 44–60
Routledge, C., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Juhl, J., & Arndt, J. (2012). The power of the
past: Nostalgia as a meaning-making resource. Memory, 20(5), 452–460.
Sarial-Abi, G., Vohs, K. D., Hamilton, R., & Ulqinaku, A. (2017). Stitching time: Vintage
consumption connects the past, present, and future. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
27(2), 182–194.
Schimel, J., Hayes, J., Williams, T., & Jahrig, J. (2007). Is death really the worm at the
core? Converging evidence that worldview threat increases death-thought accessi-
bility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 789–803.
Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2018). Finding meaning in nostalgia. Review of General
Psychology, 22(1), 48–61.
Seehusen, J., Cordaro, F., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Routledge, C., Blackhart, G. C., ...
Vingerhoets, A. J. (2013). Individual differences in nostalgia proneness: The in-
tegrating role of the need to belong. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(8),
904–908.
Shim, Y., & White, K. (2017). Embracing experiential over material consumption:
Thinking about death increases consumer preferences for experiences. ACR North
American Advances, 45, 881–883.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., van Heerde, H. J., & Geyskens, I. (2010). What makes consumers
willing to pay a price premium for national brands over private labels? Journal of
Marketing Research, 47(6), 1011–1024.
Story, V. M., Boso, N., & Cadogan, J. W. (2015). The form of relationship between firm-
level product innovativeness and new product performance in developed and emer-
ging markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 45–64.
Talke, K., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). How to overcome pro-change bias: Incorporating
passive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 894–907.
Talke, K., & Snelders, D. (2013). Information in launch messages: Stimulating the adop-
tion of new high-tech consumer products. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
30(4), 732–749.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations
and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-
form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 38(2), 227–242.
Trujillo, C. A., Barrios, A., Camacho, S. M., & Rosa, J. A. (2010). Low socioeconomic class
and consumer complexity expectations for new product technology. Journal of
Business Research, 63(6), 538–547.
Truong, Y., Klink, R. R., Simmons, G., Grinstein, A., & Palmer, M. (2017). Branding
strategies for high-technology products: The effects of consumer and product in-
novativeness. Journal of Business Research, 70, 85–91.
Van Bommel, T., O'Dwyer, C., Zuidgeest, T. W., & Poletiek, F. H. (2015). When the reaper
becomes a salesman: The influence of terror management on product preferences.
Journal of Economic & Financial Studies, 3(05), 33–42.
Van Tonder, E. (2017). Passive innovation resistance–a conservative consumer perspec-
tive. European Business Review, 29(6), 642–663.
Wiedmann, K. P., Hennigs, N., Pankalla, L., Kassubek, M., & Seegebarth, B. (2011).
Adoption barriers and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive sector.
Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1201–1206.
Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia: Content, trig-
gers, functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 975–993.
Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). Imagination difficulty and new product
evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), 76–90.
Zhou, X., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., & Gao, D. G. (2008). Counteracting loneliness: On
the restorative function of nostalgia. Psychological Science, 19(10), 1023–1029.
Benjamin Boeuf is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at IESEG School of Management
(LEM-CNRS 9221), Paris. He holds a PhD in Marketing from HEC Montreal and a Master
in Management from ESCP Europe (Paris). His research interests include marketing
communications, gender stereotypes and political ideology. He is Associate Editor at
European Journal of Marketing. His research has appeared in journals such as International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics and Psychology & Marketing.