Optimal Stimulation Level and the Adoption Decision Process

Author(s): R. A. Mittelstaedt, S. L. Grossbart, W. W. Curtis and S. P. Devere

Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sep., 1976), pp. 84-94
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2489114
Accessed: 06-03-2020 08:36 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of Consumer Research

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Optimal Stimulation Level and the Adoption
Decision Process

R. A. MITTELSTAEDT
S. L. GROSSBART
W. W. CURTIS
S. P. DEVERE*

Following the Kionglan-Coward model, adoption decisions are viewed as

following evaluation, a cognitive stage in the decision process, or trial,
an overt purchase act. Operationalizing a person's optimal stimulation level
with Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale, hypotheses linking stimulation
needs and the tendency to base an adoption decision on evaluation or
trial are supported by data from a sample survey of adult females.

In studying the adoption of innovations, researchers
deal with four critical elements of the diffusion process:
(1) an innovation (2) which is communicated through
certain channels (3) over time (4) among members of a
social system (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Of these
four elements the time dimension has been a central
consideration in diffusion research. Time is central to
charting a particular innovation's adoption rate within a
social system, measured as the number of adopters in
successive time periods. Time is the underlying factor
in identifying individual innovativeness, i.e., the rela-
tive earliness or lateness with which an individual
adopts an innovation, when compared to other persons.
Finally, time is involved in studying the processes by
which individuals pass from initial awareness to
ultimate adoption or rejection of an innovation.
Since time is crucial to all research focusing on the
processes leading to the adoption decision, it is
unfortunate that most research has been limited either
to conceptualizing the stages or functions of such a
decision process or to discriminating among those who
pass through some stage of the process on the basis of
individual characteristics or communications behaviors
(Robertson, 1971; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). When
time is of paramount concern, it would seem that the
most obvious question is not "Who passes through the
decision process?" but "How do individuals vary in
their decision behavior over time?" While it is useful to
consider the demographic characteristics, personali-
ties, abilities and behaviors of innovators and non-
innovators (Robertson and Myers, 1969; Jacoby, 1971;
Robertson, 1971; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; Coney,
1972; Ostlund, 1972), it should be productive to
understand how the decision process itself unfolds over
time for different individuals. This information is
potentially important not only to understand innovative
consumer behavior, but also to overcome a methodo-
logical weakness in consumer diffusion research. As
recently noted by Kotler and Zaltman (1974), the typical
research design classifies individuals on the basis of
their time of adoption relative to the time of a product's
introduction in the market. When trying to identify
attributes of early adopters, such designs confound the
variables associated with exposure and those associ-
ated with adoption. Studying behavior within the
decision process should contribute to an improved
methodology for studying consumer innovativeness.
This paper presents a consideration of the personality
factors underlying innovativeness within a framework
which takes the time of exposure to the innovation into
account. Considerations of individual characteristics of
innovators and the nature of the decision process are
brought together in a model of the innovation decision
process; the tendencies underlying innovativeness and
differential styles of decision making are conceptual-
ized and operationalized and a series of hypotheses
relating characteristics of the consumer to the nature of
the decision process are tested.
THE INNOVATION DECISION PROCESS

* Robert Mittelstaedt is Nathan Gold Professor of Marketing,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Sanford Grossbart and William
Curtis are Associate Professors of Marketing, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. Stephen DeVere is Instructor of Marketing,
Creighton University.
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) conceptualize the
innovation-decision process in four functions or stages:
knowledge, persuasion, decision and confirmation.
While they note that all material innovations, i.e., new
products, contain both an idea component and an object

84 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH e Vol. 3 . September 1976

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
OPTIMAL STIMULATION LEVEL AND ADOPTION DECISION PROCESS 85

(Phase A)

SYMBOLIC
REJECTION

-AWARENESS INFORMATION EVALUATION

SYMBOLIC
ADOPTION

(Phase B)

TRIAL
REJECTION

SYMBOLIC -* TRIAL
ADOPTION L

TRIAL |_ |_USE
ACCEPTANCE ADOPTION

FIGURE 1
The Place of Symbolic Adoption in the Adoption Process

Gerald E. Klonglan and E. W. Coward, Jr., "The Concept of Symbolic Adoption: A Suggested Interpretation,
Rural Sociology, 35 (March 1970), p. 80.

component, they reserve the term "symbolic decision"
for those innovations containing only an ideational
component, e.g., a political ideology. Decisions
involving new products, because they have an object
component, are viewed as invoking an observable
action decision. Indeed, almost all studies of consumer
adoption processes have used the purchase of a product
(or, occasionally, repurchase) as the definitional
criterion of an adopter.
An alternative conceptualization of the innovation
decision process has been developed by Klonglan and
Coward (1970). Arguing that a new product necessarily
involves both an idea and an object, with corresponding
symbolic and action forms of adoption, they have
proposed a two-phase model of the adoption process. In
their formulation, awareness of an innovation precedes
evaluation, which may result in either symbolic
acceptance or symbolic rejection of the idea of the
product. Symbolic acceptance is a necessary, but
not sufficient, condition to proceed on to trial, which
may or may not lead to adoption. This model is
presented in Figure 1. Invoking this evaluative stage,
which is essentially cognitive in nature, suggests two
points: (1) Some individuals may symbolically reject an
innovation by deciding, on the basis of available
information, that a new product is "not for them." For
example, a housewife who becomes aware of the
existence of a new dessert topping may, on the basis of
various received communications, conclude that her
family would not like the product and symbolically
reject it without trial. (2) Other individuals may
symbolically accept the idea of the product but, for a
variety of reasons, be unwilling or unable to move onto
the trial stage. After exposure to similar information,
another housewife might decide that her family would
like the new topping (symbolic acceptance) but
postpone purchase until she made a dessert for which
the topping was appropriate.
Using this model, Hermann, Warland and Carpenter
(1971) classified a large sample of Philadelphia
households into the seven categories pictured in Figure
2, based on their reported behavior or stated intentions
toward six "imitation" food products. Their analysis
focused on three of these categories: symbolic rejectors

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 86 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Symbolic rejection (3)

UNAWARE (1)- Pre-evaluation (2)

trial rejection (5)

Symbolic adoption (4) Trial ptrial acceptance (6) - use adoption
tri_`-~trial indecision (7)

FIGURE 2
Stages of the Adoption Process Model Used by Hermann, Warland and Carpenter

Adapted from R. 0. Hermann, R. E. Warland and E. H. Carpenter, Consumer Adoption and Rejection of Imitation Food
Produicts. Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 779, University Park, Pennsylvania,
January 1972, 7.

(i.e., those who were aware of the product, had the idea that customers seek to minimize stimulation
considered purchasing it, but had not tried it and is diddifficult
not to justify in light of an apparent simultaneous
intend to), trial rejectors (i.e., those who had purchased tendency to seek out novel consumption experiences.
the product once but did not intend to repurchase it) and Howard and Sheth (1969) and Venkatesan (1973),
trial acceptors (i.e., those who had tried the product and among others, have argued that the concept of an
intended to continue purchasing it.) Their findings optimum level of stimulation represents a more
generally support the picture of symbolic rejectors as appropriate viewpoint. The essence of this argument
older, noninnovative, tradition oriented families. The is that individuals strive to maintain an optimal level of
differences among the trial acceptors and trial rejectors stimulation and that departures from optimality lead to
appeared to be dependent mostly on the nature of the behaviors intended to reestablish stimulus input in an
family's circumstances and the nature of the product, optimal intermediate range (Berlyne, 1960; Jones, 1969;
that is, low calorie products were adopted by families Kish, 1966). This position has been conceptualized and
concerned with caloric intake, "economy" products by researched in terms of activation based on need for
families with lower incomes. variation (Maddi, Propst and Feldinger, 1965), reactions
The Klonglan and Coward model assumes that to incongruity and arousal (Hunt, 1963) and a general
all who become aware of a new product will evaluate it incongruity adaptation level (Driver and Streufert,
cognitively before initial purchase, thus implicitly 1965).
denying the possibility that some persons may use trial Evidence indicates that an "optimum stimulation
as their informational input for evaluation. This paper level" possesses intra-individual stability but varies
accepts the view that all trial is preceded by some across individuals (summarized in Zuckerman, 1971).
conscious evaluation, but explicitly proposes that One operationalization of the resulting personality
people vary considerably in their propensities toward variable is Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale (1964).
either cognition or action. There are individuals who The General Sensation Seeking Scale (GSSS), repro-
seek direct experience and are predisposed to form duced in Appendix A, consists of forced-choice pairs
their evaluation of new products on the basis of a trial which describe activities and situations of different
purchase, while others tend to accept or reject a new levels of stimulation.' Scoring consists of summing
product on the basis of received information alone. the number of choices involving the more stimulating
The innovation decision process of those with a pre- activities and situations.
disposition to seek experience should differ, in a Research has generally supported Kish and Donne-
predictable manner, from those of a more cognitive worth's (1972) characterization of the high sensation
bent. However, before presenting a set of specific seeker (HSS) as having "a stronger than average need
hypotheses based on this argument, it is necessary to to seek out approach situations, activities and ideas
refine the general concept of "a predisposition to seek which are novel, changing, complex, surprising or more
experience" and review, in particular, the research intense (p. 49)." Supporting this view are a number of
surrounding the operationalization of this concept, studies in which the GSSS has been positively related
known as "sensation seeking."

INNOVATIVENESS AND STIMULATION

Discussions of consumer behavior often employ the
assumption that the actions of buyers refllect the opera-
tion of mechanisms which operate to avoid the dis-
equilibrium caused by unexpected stimulus inputs. Yet
1 In addition to the GSSS, Zuckerman has developed a Sensation
Seeking Scale (SSS) made up of four subscales, Thrill and Adventure
Seeking, Experience Seeking, Disinhibition and Boredom Suscept-
ibility (Zuckerman, 1971). Because of its relative recency there are
considerably fewer reports of its construct validity. Further, the
length and nature of the items included make the SSS less suitable
for field research.

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
OPTIMAL STIMULATION LEVEL AND ADOPTION DECISION PROCESS 87
to other measures of change and novelty seeking (Acker
and McReynolds, 1967; Kish and Donneworth, 1969;
Looft and Baranowski, 1971; McCarroll, et. al., 1967;
Pearson, 1970; Penney and Reineht, 1967; Waters, 1974;
Waters and Waters, 1969; Zuckerman and Link, 1968).
The impulsiveness of the HSS has been demonstrated
through the relationship of the GSSS to a cluster of
"impulsiveness" factors on the Catell 16PF Scale
(Gorman, 1970) and to the hypomania scale (Ma) of the
MMPI (Blackburn, 1969; Zuckerman, et. al., 1972;
Zuckerman, Schultz and Hopkins, 1967).
Three studies have been reported, each of which
shows convergence between sensation seeking and a
different single correlate of innovativeness (Robertson,
1971). First, Kish and Busse (1968) found a positive
relationship between the GSSS and education, although
they concluded that the relationship probably reflected
differential intelligence levels rather than educational
experience. Second, the GSSS has been positively
related to Pettigrew's (1956) "Breadth of Categoriza-
tion" scale. Popielarz (1967) argued that "breadth of
categorization" was a measure of "risk-taking" (i.e.,
venturesomeness) and found Pettigrew's scale to be
related to a willingness to buy new products. Finally,
Kish and Donneworth (1972) report an inverse rela-
tionship between sensation seeking and "closed-
mindedness" as measured by Rokeach's (1960) Dog-
matism Scale. Two recent studies support the argument
that low-dogmatics are innovation prone (Coney, 1972;
Jacoby, 1971), although results in the general diffusion
literature are "mixed" (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).
While high sensation seekers appear to exhibit some
of the characteristics found in innovators and early
adopters, it must be emphasized that this study does
not propose to link "sensation seeking" and "innova-
tiveness" by showing that the GSSS is another correlate
of early adoption. The differences between the present
study and those which examine differences in charac-
teristics between earlier and later adopters are both
conceptual and methodological. Conceptually, the
linkage between "sensation seeking" and "innovative-
ness" derives from differences between the adoption
decision processes of high and low sensation seekers.
After exposure to the existence of an innovation, the
HSS will tend to use the act of consumption to gain
information; by contrast, the LSS will tend to rely on
greater cognitive evaluation to gain requisite knowledge
prior to purchase. Disposed toward action, the HSS
symbolically rejects fewer and tries more innovations
more quickly than the LSS. In the absence of an
assumption that the attributes of an innovation are
inherently more appealing to the HSS group, their
greater trial rate should lead to both more acceptance
(adoption) and more rejection based on trial. Thus, a
key difference between the adoption decision processes
of the HSS and the LSS is reflected in the point at which
they reject an innovation; while the LSS tends to reject
without trial (i.e., symbolically), the HSS tends to reject
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
after trial. The other side of this difference in decision
processes relates to the innovativeness of the HSS
group. Although the "ultimate" adoption rates of the
HSS and LSS groups may not differ, a disproportionate
number of early triers or adopters are likely to be HSS's
evaluating the innovation through trial. Methodo-
logically, as described below, this study does not com-
pare the sensation seeking tendencies of earlier and
later adopters. Rather, these tendencies are compared
for those at each successive stage of the adoption-
decision process. Further, this refinement means that
comparisons are made only among consumers actually
in the adoption process "stream," avoiding a possible
confusion which might arise from including those who
will never adopt with "later adopters" (Donnelly and
Ivancevich, 1974; Peat, Gentry and Brown, 1975).
The following research hypotheses concerning prod-
uct and retail innovations were generated to test these
propositions within the framework of the Klonglan and
Coward innovation decision process model (Figure 2).
HYPOTHESES
Compared to low sensation seekers, high sensation
seekers will exhibit:
1.1 more awareness of new products
1.2 more awareness of retail facilities
Given awareness, compared to low sensation seekers,
high sensation seekers will exhibit:
2.1 a greater tendency to consider, or evalutate
the possibility of, buying new products
2.2 a greater tendency to consider, or evaluate
the possibility of, shopping in new retail
facilities
Given evaluation, compared to low sensation
seekers, high sensation seekers will exhibit:
3.1 a lesser tendency to symbolically reject new
products
3.2 a lesser tendency to symbolically reject new
retail facilities
4.1 a greater tendency to try new products
4.2 a greater tendency to try new retail facilities
5.1 a greater tendency to reject new products
on the basis of trial
5.2 a greater tendency to reject new retail facilities
on the basis of trial
6.1 a greater tendency to adopt new products
6.2 a greater tendency to adopt new retail facilities
Given trial, compared to low sensation seekers,
high sensation seekers will exhibit:
7.1 a shorter decision time between awareness
and trial of new products
7.2 a shorter decision time between awareness
and trial of new retail facilities than low
sensation seekers.
 88 THE JOURNAL
EXHIBIT 1
New Products and Retail Facilities Used in Study
Products Facilities
Dawn Dishwashing Detergent St. George and the Dragon
P-300 Soap The French Restaurant
Listeial Disinfectant Little Kings
Woodcrafters Furniture Polish The Satellite Club
Clean & Shine Cleaner Art World
Sure Deodorant The Optical Shop
Dial Extra-Dry Deodorant Glass Menagerie
Jergens Extra-Dry Skin Nordic Nook
Red Kettle T.V.P. Dinners
Stove-Top Stuffing
Egg Beaters
Life Savers Gum
Winchester Small Cigars
Tender Vittles
People Magazine
Volkswagon Dasher
Polaroid SX 70 Camera
Kodak Pocket Instamatic
METHOD
Products and Facilities
Eighteen recently introduced products and eight re-
tail facilities were chosen for testing. The products
represented several product classes and had been
intensively distributed and/or heavily promoted. The
eight retail facilities included recently opened restau-
rants, cocktail lounges, specialty shops and clothing
stores. All facilities were either located within a mid-
western city's major shopping agglomerations or were
heavily promoted.
It should be noted that, because the study is non-
experimental, the nature of the stimuli (innovations) was
controlled by the environment rather than the re-
searchers. This fact necessitates assumptions of equal
exposure, interest and attractiveness to the two sub-
ject groups. However, while the choice of products
and outlets was constrained by their availability for
this study, the specific innovations studied (See Exhibit 1)
were chosen from a larger set to include those with
the widest apparent exposure. Further, the argument
developed above and the cited literature suggested that
sensation seeking tendencies are related to decision
making style and there is no a priori reason why par-
ticular products or facilities should attract one SS group associated with such a procedure. First, because it was
more than another. However, because such differences
may exist, aggregation of the decision process data into more products and facilities, the decisions made by the
two broad categories (products and facilities) should
have minimized inter-product or inter-facility differ-
ences. Thus, avoiding the employment of a narrower
range of innovations with limited exposure to the pop-
ulation increased the potential for a fuller assessment
of the domain of the relationship between the need for
stimulation, the character of the decision process and
innovative behaviors.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Respondents
The respondents were adult females in a midwestern
city (N= 114). Although the inclusion of retail facilities
increased the probability of innovative behavior by their
male counterparts, females were chosen because of
their greater probable exposure to product innovations
and their roles in purchasing food, cleaning, and per-
sonal care products. Respondents were chosen by a
random multi-stage sampling method. The resulting
characteristics of sampled respondents were judged to
be comparable to the socioeconomic and demographic
features of the population.
Operationalization of Decision Behavior
The Klonglan-Coward model was used to develop a
series of seven questions which elicited information as
to: (1) awareness of the new product (or facility); (2)
time of awareness of the new product (or facility);
(3) consideration of purchase (or use) of the product
(or facility); (4) symbolic acceptance/rejection of the
new product (or facility), i.e., a consideration of the
innovation and subsequent decision regarding whether
to initially buy (or visit) the innovation; (5) purchase
use (or shopping use) of the innovation; (6) time of initial
purchase or store visit; (7) trial acceptance/rejection of
the new product (or facility), i.e., trial of the innovation
and subsequent decision regarding intended continua-
tion of use of the innovation. The decision behavior
questions were administered by the interviewer.
Sensation-Seeking
Respondents were also asked to complete Form II
of the General Sensation Seeking Scale (GSSS) (Zuck-
erman, 1964) in the presence of the interviewer. Inter-
view duration was approximately forty-five minutes with
the self-administered GSSS portion requiring about
one-quarter to one-third of the total time.
PROCEDURE
The hypotheses predict that the decision making
behavior of the HSS and the LSS differ. While it might
appear possible to test each hypothesis for each prod-
uct and facility, there are two conceptual problems
expected that the HSS's would be aware of and try
HSS's would be disproportionately weighted in the test
of any single hypothesis for any one product or facility.
Second, due to some inherent qualities of a particular
product or store, it is possible that it might attract a
disproportionate number of HSS's or LSS's. Either
way, the tests of the hypotheses by product or store
would be affected. While aggregation across all
decisions might meet the second objection, a heavier
OPTIMAL STIMULATION LEVEL AND ADOPTION DECISION PROCESS 89

TABLE 1

TEST VALUES AND SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS GENERATED FROM COMPARISONS

OF LSS AND HSS INNOVATION DECISION BEHAVIOR

Innovation Decision Behavior

Decision
Function of LSS HSS t or z Significance
Characteristic Hypothesis Decision Behavior Variable n = 83 n = 31 Value Level

1.1 Number of new products of 10.32 11.29 1.26 .10*

which the customer is aware

Awareness 1.2 Number of new retail facilities 4.05 4.55 4.69 .001**
of which the customer is aware

2. 1 Number of products considered 76.4 75.6

as a percentage of the number
of new products of which
customer is aware

Evaluation 2.2 Number of retail facilities con- 70.4 81.1 2.72 .01**
sidered as a percentage of the
number of new retail facilities
of which customer is aware

3.1 Number of products rejected 41.6 36.2 1.69 05**

without trial as a percentage
of the number of products
considered

Symbolic Rejection 3.2 Number of retail facilities re- 22.4 11.3 2.75 .01**
jected without trial as a per-
centage of the number of
retail facilities considered

4.1 Number of products tried as a 39.3 47.3 2.67 .01**

percentage of products con-
sidered

Trial 4.2 Number of retail facilities tried 38.2 51.3 2.69 .01**
as a percentage of retail
facilities considered

5.1 Number of products rejected 12.2 18.3 2.35 .01**

after trial as a percentage of
products considered

Trial Rejection 5.2 Number of retail facilities re- 5.5 4.3

jected after trial as a per-
centage of retail facilities
considered

6.1 Number of products adopted as 27.1 28.9 .53 .30*

a percentage of products
considered

Adoption 6.2 Number of retail facilities 32.7 47.0 2.86 .01**

adopted as a percentage of
retail facilities considered

7.1 Decision time between aware- 1.28 .82 2.45 .01**

ness and trial of products
(in months)

Decision Time 7.2 Decision time between aware- .76 .78

ness and trial of retail facili-
ties (in months)

* Supports stated hypothesis.

** Supports stated hypothesis at p < .05 or less.

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 90 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

SYMBOLIC
REJECTION
LSS 41.6*
HSS 36.2* TRIAL
AWARENESS EVALUATION REJECTION
LSS 10.32 > LSS 76.4** LSS 12.2*
HSS 11.29 HSS 75.6*- L HSS 18.3*

A SYMBOLIC TRIAL
ADOPTION LSS 39.3*
HSS 47.3*

>,TRIAL USE
ACCEPTANCE > ADOPTION
LSS 27.1*
HSS 28.9*

AWARENESS-TRIAL DECISION TIME

LSS 1.28 months
HSS .82 months

** Stated as a percentage of the products of which customers are aware.

* Stated as a percentage of the products evaluated.

FIGURE 3

New Product Innovation Decision Process Behavior of High (HSS) and Low (LSS) Sensation Seekers

weight would still be given to the larger number of
decisions made by the HSS's. Therefore, it was
necessary to aggregate the decisions for each respond-
ent, calculate an average and then aggregate across
respondents.
The Zuckerman classification procedure (1964) was
used to place each respondent into one of two categories,
high sensation seeker (HSS) or low sensation seeking
(LSS), on the basis of their summed SSS score. For
each SS category, mean values were computed
separately for the fourteen dependent variables cor-
responding to each hypothesis. The dependent variables
are listed in Table 1. It should be noted that the bases
for computing the percentages associated with hy-
potheses 2 through 6 differ. The number of products
or facilities considered (H2. 1, H2.2) are expressed as
percentages of the total alternatives of which the re-
spondents were aware; the percentages of products and
facilities rejected, tried or adopted (H3. 1 through H6.2)
were calculated on the basis of alternatives considered.
The dependent variables concerning decision time
(H7.1, H7.2) were based on the time at which each
respondent reported awareness of the innovation, over-
coming the previously discussed objections of Kotler
and Zaltman (1974). Appropriate "t" and "Z" tests,
with an .05 standard of significance, were used to test
the differences between HSS and LSS groups for each
set of mean values.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results are presented in schematic form in Fig-
ures 3 and 4 so that they may initially be interpreted in
terms of the Klonglan and Coward model. Reference to
Figure 3 indicates that the HSS is aware of more new
products, has a slightly lesser tendency to evaluate
those products, rejects relatively fewer products sym-
bolically, is more apt to try new pro4ucts and reject
them after trial and adopts a greater proportion of those
products originally considered than the LSS. In Figure 4
it can be seen that the HSS is aware of more new
stores, is more likely to evaluate and try new facilities,
is less likely to reject new facilities on any basis (sym-
bolic or trial) and also adopts a greater proportion of
those facilities considered.
Of the 14 hypotheses generated from the model and
shown in Table 1, nine are supported by differences
which are statistically significant at the .05 level, two
other differences are in the hypothesized direction but
lack significance by the usual standards and three dif-
ferences fail to support the predictions. While offering
general support for the stated relationships, there appear
to be both similarities and differences in the innovation
decision processes for products and facilities. (For a
discussion of other differences between product and
facility innovations, see Green, Langeard and Favelle,
1974.)
To look first at the similarities, it should be noted
that the study design was cross-sectional and the data
present a picture of persons in various stages of the
decision process at a given point in time. While there
may be no differences in the ultimate adoption rates of
HSS's and LSS's, this "midstream view" shows that
HSS's regard the act of symbolic rejection as a prema-
ture and inappropriate form of discrimination while

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
OPTIMAL STIMULATION LEVEL AND ADOPTION DECISION PROCESS 91

SYMBOLIC
REJECTION
LSS 22.4*
HSS 11.3*

AWARENESS EVALUATION TRIAL

LSS 4.03 LSS 70.41-* REJECTION
HSS 4.55 HSS 81.1 LSS 5.5*
HSS 4.3*

SYMBOLIC TRIAL
ADOPTION > LSS 38.2*
HSS 51.3*

TRIAL USE
ACCEPTANCE ADOPTION
LSS 32.7*
HSS 47.0*

AWARENESS-TRIAL DECISION TIME

LSS .76 months
HSS .78 months

** Stated as a percentage of the facilities of which the customer are aware.

* Stated as a percentage of the facilities evaluated.

FIGURE 4

New retail innovation decision process behavior of High (HSS) and Low (LSS) sensation seekers

LSS's behave in a generally more contemplative man-
ner. To avoid the fallacious assumption that consumers
are simultaneously exposed to (or that they simul-
taneously evaluated) all innovations, the third through
sixth set of hypotheses concerning symbolic accept-
ance/rejection, trial, trial rejection, and adoption, are
stated in terms of the products and facilities considered.
This procedure also allows the researcher to distinguish
between consumer methods of product rejection
and to avoid unnecessarily relating adoption to the
number of innovations tried. As the results indicate,
the two sensation seeking groups utilize trial for quite
different purposes. Of the new products and facilities
considered, HSS's showed a significantly lesser tend-
ency to reject symbolically (H3. 1, H3.2). In the case
of products, the decision time from awareness to trial
was significantly shorter for HSS's (H7. 1). Further-
more, of the alternatives considered, HSS's had tried
more (H4. 1, H4.2) and, on the basis of trial, had reached
a "final decision" to reject (H5. 1) or adopt (H6. 1, H6.2)
more alternatives. Thus it appears that, in general,
HSS's tend to be impatient with the evaluation stage of
the adoption process and push onto trial, symbolically
rejecting fewer alternatives in the process.
However, the awareness and early consideration of
products and facilities seemed to differ. The predicted
tendency for HSS to be aware of and consider more
alternatives held for retail facilities (HI.2, H2.2) but not
for products (H1.1, H1.2), although the tendency for
HSS to be aware of more new products (H 1.1) was in
the hypothesized direction. Two possible differences
between products and facilities which may account
for these findings suggest themselves. First, the
acquisiton of new market knowledge is, after all, only
partially "exploratory" and, therefore, only partially
a function of "sensation seeking." Awareness and
evaluation (at least in some preliminary sense) are also
epistemic (Howard and Sheth, 1969), i.e., involve the
storage of information for future use, and the oppor-
tunity to acquire and process initially information about
new products and facilities might be expected, in part,
to be a function of exposure to messages about new
alternatives. It seems reasonable to assume that, in the
introductory stage, most new product information is
received from mass media while new facility informa-
tion may tend to come from word of mouth. Differences
between HSS and LSS in exposure to these two gener-
alized sources may account, in part, for the finding.
Since the model made no predictions along these lines,
the point, unfortunately, was not investigated. Second,
it is possible that the hypothesized differences in aware-
ness for products and facilities are observable only in

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 92 THE JOURNAL OF
the case of more discontinuous innovations (Robertson
and Myers, 1969) which presumably provide more
stimulus impact. If it can be assumed that the new
retail facilities studied are more "discontinuous"
innovations (i.e., more disruptive of existing consump-
tion patterns) or possess different perceived attributes
(Ostlund, 1974) than the products studied, this may
account for the finding.
As predicted, HSS had rejected a larger proportion
of products after trial (H5. 1) and had adopted a larger
proportion of the products they considered (H6.1)
althought the latter hypothesized difference lacked
statistical significance. With respect to new facilities,
HSS had adopted a larger proportion of considered
facilities (H6.2) but the prediction concerning trial
rejection (H5.2) was not supported. Again, it appears
that there are differences in the adoption-decision proc-
esses for products and facilities. For both HSS and
LSS, a larger proportion of products considered were
rejected and a smaller proportion adopted, when com-
pared to retail facilities. As noted before, this suggests
that new retail facilities may have more stimulating
properties than products, perhaps due to their multiple
uses or their possible greater discontinuity.
SUMMARY
The study reported in this article was designed to test
hypotheses based on the notion that the nature of the
adoption decision process would differ for both new
products and new retail facilities, according to con-
sumer's predispositions for direct action (sensation
seeking). It was hypothesized that high sensation
seekers would be more aware of new alternatives, con-
sider more alternatives and, rejecting fewer on the basis
of cognitive evaluation alone, would try and ultimately
adopt more innovations. In general, the expectation
that high sensation seekers tend to push through the
evaluation phase to actual trial was well supported for
both products and facilities, but the awareness and
ultimate adoption patterns appeared to be dependent
on the nature of the innovation.
APPENDIX A
These questions are designed to find out the way in
which certain events, important and routine, affect the
members of society. Each item consists of a pair of
alternatives lettered "A" or "B". Please select the
one statement from each pair (and only one) which
more closely resembles your preferences. This is
simply a measure of personal beliefs; there are no
"right" or "wrong" answers. To choose an item,
simply circle your choice ("A" or "B"). As with the
rest of the questionnaire, any information you give us
will be held in confidence.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER. RESEARCH
1. *A. I would like a job which would require a lot
of traveling.
B. I would prefer a job in one location.
2. *A. I am invigorated by a brisk, cold day.
B. I can't wait to get into the indoors on a cold day.
3. *A. I often wish I could be a mountain climber.
B. I can't understand people who risk their necks
climbing mountains.
4. A. I dislike all body odors.
*B. I like some of the earthy body smells.
5. *A. I get bored seeing the same old faces.
B. I like the comfortable familiarity of everyday
friends.
6. *A. I like to explore a strange city or section of
town by myself, even if it means getting lost.
B. I prefer a guide when I am in a place I don't
know well.
7. A. I would not like to try any drug which might
produce strange and dangerous effects on me.
*B. I would like to try some of the new drugs that
produce hallucinations.
8. A. I would prefer living in an ideal society where
everyone is safe, secure, and happy.
*B. I would have preferred living in the unsettled
days of our history.
9. *A. I sometimes like to do things that are a little
frightening.
B. A sensible person avoids activities that are
dangerous.
10. *A. I would like to take up the sport of water
skiing.
B. I would not like to take up water skiing.
11. A. When I go on a trip I like to plan my route and
timetable fairly carefully.
*B. I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-
planned or definite routes, or timetables.
12. *A. I would like to learn to fly an airplane.
B. I would not like to learn to fly an airplane.
13. A. I would not like to be hypnotized.
*B. I would like to have the experience of being
hypnotized.
14. *A. The most important goal of life is to live it to
the fullest and experience as much of it as
you can.
B. The most important goal of life is to find
peace and happiness.
15. *A. I would like to try parachute jumping.
B. I would never want to try jumping out of a
plane, with or without a parachute.
16. A. I enter cold water gradually giving myself
time to get used to it.
*B. I like to dive or jump right into the ocean
or a cold pool.
17. *A. I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredict-
able.
B. I prefer friends who are reliable and predictable.
OPTIMAL STIMULATION LEVEL AND ADOPTION DECISION PROCESS 93
18. A. When I go on a vacation I prefer the comfort
of a good room and bed.
*B. When I go on vacation I would prefer the
change of camping out.
19. A. The essence of good art is in its clarity, sym-
metry of form, and harmony of colors.
*B. I often find beauty in the "clashing" colors
and irregular forms of modern paintings.
20. *A. I prefer people who are emotionally expressive
even if they are a bit unstable.
B. I prefer people who are calm and even tempered.
21. *A. A good painting should shock or jolt the senses.
B. A good painting should give one a feeling of
peace and security.
22. A. People who ride motorcycles must have some
kind of an unconscious need to hurt themselves.
*B. I would like to drive or ride on a motorcycle.
(* Denotes greater sensation seeking tendency.)
REFERENCES
Acker, Mary and Paul McReynolds. "The 'Need for
Novelty': A Comparison of Six Instruments," Psycho-
logical Record, 17 (1967), 177-182.
Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Blackburn, R. "Sensation Seeking, Impulsivity and Psycho-
pathic Personality," Jolurnal of Clinical and Consulting
Psychology, 33 (1969), 571-574.
Coney, Kenneth. "Dogmatism and Innovation: A Replica-
tion," Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (November
1972), 453-4.
Donnelly, James H., Jr. and John M. Ivancevich. "A Meth-
odology for Identifying Innovator Characteristics of
New Brand Purchasers," Joulrnal of Marketing Re-
search, 11 (August 1974), 331-4.
Driver, M. J. and S. Streufert. "The 'General Incongruity
Adaptation Level' Hypothesis: An Analysis and Integra-
tion of Cognitive Approaches To Motivation," Institute
for Research in the Behavioral, Economic and Manage-
ment Sciences, Herman C. Krannert Graduate School
of Industrial Administration, Purdue University, Lafa-
yette, Ind., 1965, Paper No. 114.
Gorman, Bernard S. " 16 PF Correlates of Sensation-
Seeking." Psychological Reports, 26 (1970), 741-742.
Green, Robert T., Eric Langeard and Alice C. Favell.
"Innovation in the Service Sector: Some Empirical
Findings," Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (August
1974), 323-326.
Hermann, R. O., R. H. Warland and E. H. Carpenter. Con-
sumer Adoption and Rejection of Imitation Food Prod-
ucts. Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Bulletin 779, University Park, Pennsyl-
vania, January, 1972.
Howard, J. A. and J. N. Sheth. The Theory of Buyer Be-
havior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969, 164- 165.
Hunt, J. M. "Motivation Inherent in Information Processing
and Action," in 0. J. Harvey, ed., Motivation and
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Social Interaction-Cognitive Determinants. New York:
The Ronald Press, 1963, 35-94.
Jacoby, Jacob. "Personality and Innovation Proneness,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (May 1971), 244-7.
Jones, Austin. "Stimulus Seeking Behavior," in John P.
Zulzek, ed. Sensory Deprivation. New York: Appleton,
Century and Crofts, 1969.
Kish, George B. "Studies in Sensory Reinforcement," in
W. K. Honig, ed., Operant Behavior: Areas of Re-
search and Application. New York: Appleton, Century
and Crofts, 1966.
Kish, George B. and William Busse. "Correlates of Stimulus-
Seeking: Age, Education, Intelligence, and Aptitudes,"
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32
(1968), 633-637.
Kish, G. B. and G. V. Donnenwerth. "Interests and
Stimulus-Seeking," Journal of Counseling Psychology,
16 (1969), 551-556.
. "Sex Differences in the Correlates of Stimulus
Seeking," Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psy-
chology, 38 (1972), 42-49.
Klonglan, G. E. and E. W. Coward. "The Concept of
Symbolic Adoption: A Suggested Interpretation," Rural
Sociology, 35 (March 1970), 77-83. `
Kotler, Philip and Gerald Zaltman. "The Adoption of New
Products," A Paper Submitted to Marcel Dassault Jours
de France Foundation, May, 1974.
Looft, William R. and Marc D. Baranowski. "An Analysis
of Five Measures of Sensation-seeking and Preference
for Complexity," Jouirnal of General Psychology, 85
(1971), 307-313.
McCaririoll, James E., Kevin M. Mitchell, Ronda J. Carpenter
and J. P. Anderson. "Analysis of Three Stimulation-
seeking Scales," Psychological Reports, 21 (1967),
853-856.
Maddi, Salvator R., Barbara Scott Propst and Irwin
Feldinger. "Three Expressions of the Need for Vari-
ety," Journal of Personality, 33 (1965), 82-98.
Ostlund, Lyman E. "A Study of Innovativeness Overlap,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (August 1972), 341- 3.
. "Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of
Innovativeness," Journal of Consumer Research,
1 (September 1974), 23-29.
Pearson, P. H. "Relationships Between Global and Specified
Measures of Novelty Seeking," Joulrnal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 34 (1970), 199-204.
Peat, Nancy C., James W. Gentry and Thomas L. Brown,
"A Comment on 'Identifying Buyers of a Major Auto-
motive Innovation," Journal of Marketing, 39 (1975),
61-62.
Penney, Ronald K. and Robert C. Reinehr. "Development
of a Stimulus Variation Seeking Scale for Adults,"
Psychological Reports, 18 (1966), 63 1-638.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. "The Measurement and Correlates of
Category Width as a Cognitive Variable," Journal of
Personality, 26 (1956), 532-544.
Popielarz, Donald T. "An Exploration of Perceived Risk
and Willingness to Try New Products," Journal of
Marketing Research, 4 (1967), 368-372.
Robertson, T. S. Innovative Behavior and Communication.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971.
 94 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Robertson, Thomas S. and James H. Myers. "Personality
Correlates of Opinion Leadership and Innovative Buying
Behavior," Jon rnal of Marlketing Research, 6 (May
1969), 164-8.
Rogers, E. M. and F. F. Shoemaker. Commuinication of
Innovations. New York: The Free Press. 1971.
Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York:
Basic Books, 1960.
Venkatesan, M. "Cognitive Consistency and Novelty Seek-
ing" in Scott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson, eds.
Consulmer Behavior: Tlheor-etical Sources. Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1973, 354-384.
Waters, Carrie. "Multidimensional Measures of Novelty
Exper-iencing, Sensation Seeking and Ability: Cor-iela-
tional Analysis foi Male and Female College Samples,"
Psychological Repor-ts, 34 (1974), 43-46.
Waters, Carrie and L. K. Waters. "Relationships Between
a Measure of 'Sensation-Seeking' and Personal Prefer-
ence Schedule Need Scales," Ediucationcal and Psyclio-
logical Measuri-ement, 29 (1969), 983-985.
ZLuckerman, Marvin. "Development of a Sensation-Seeking
Scale," Joiurni1al of Consu5ltin1g Psychology, 28 (1964),
477-482.
"Dimensions of Sensation Seeking," Journ-iial of
Con1sfilting and Cliniical Psychology, 36 (1971), 45-52.
Zucker-man, Mar-vin, and Kathryn Link. "Construct Validity
For The S. S. S.'' Jouirnal of Consuiltinig and Clinical
Psychology, 32 (1968), 420-426.
ZLuckerman, Marvin, Ronald Bone, Richard Neary, David
Mangelsdoi-ff and Barbara Brustman. "What is the
Sensation Seeker? Personality Tr-ait and Expei-ience
Cot-i-elates of the Sensation-seeking Scales," Jour)nal
of Con1siiltin1g canid Clinical Psychology, 39 (1972),
308- 32 1.
ZLuckerman, Maivin, Duane P. Schultz and T. Rober-t Hop-
kins. "Sensation Seeking and Volunteering foi Sensory
Deprivation and Hypnosis Experiments," Joiurnaicil of
Conisultinig Psychology, 3 1 (1967), 358-363.

HOUv3SaI C
8WInSNOO MS
DON'T MISS A SINGLE ISSUE!

luul SUBSCRIBE NOW.

Subscriptions should be sent to:

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

222 South Riverside Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60606

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES

Domestic Foreign
U.S. & Canada All others

One year subscription for $14.50 $16.50

members of co-sponsoring
organizations

Libraries, businesses, $29.00 $31.00

government and other
individual subscriptions

The Journal of Consumer Research is an interdisciplinary journal co-sponsored by the following organizations:

American Marketing Association, American Economic Association, American Sociological Association, American Asso
tion for Public Opinion Research, American Statistical Association, American Psychological Association (Div. 23), American
Home Economics Association, Association for Consumer Research, and The Institute of Management Sciences.

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms