Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

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

Advances in consumer innovation resistance research: A review and

research agenda
Dan Huang a, b, *, Xin Jin a, b, Alexandra Coghlan a, b
a
Business school, Griffith University, Australia
b
Griffith Institute for Tourism, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Innovation resistance is an emerging area of research in marketing. This study delineates the state of the art in
Innovation resistance consumer innovation resistance literature and advances theoretical development in this area by providing a
Co-citation analysis systematic review of 152 articles extracted from the Scopus database. The articles were analyzed using multiple-
Content analysis
perspective document co-citation analysis and content analysis, aided by CiteSpace and Leximancer, to identify
Consumer behavior
Literature review
intellectual foundations, research topics, contexts, and methods of existing literature. Based on the results of the
Bibliometric method review and expert interviews, this study then discussed six research avenues: (1) operationalizing innovation
resistance; (2) factors leading to innovation resistance; (3) a process-based perspective; (4) the consequences of
innovation resistance; (5) emerging key research contexts; and (6) strategies to overcome innovation resistance.
The study contributes to an overall understanding of current literature on innovation resistance and reveals
future research domains.

1. Introduction (2015) undertook a systematic review of 50 articles, the study primarily

Innovation resistance is defined as “the resistance offered by con­
sumers to an innovation, either because it poses potential changes from
a satisfactory status quo or because it conflicts with their belief struc­
ture” (Ram and Sheth, 1989, p. 6). It challenges the pro-innovation bias,
whereby, most innovation research has (until recently) focused on how
innovation can be successfully adopted. This pro-innovation bias implies
that all innovations are superior to the existing alternatives and should
be adopted by members of a social system (Ram, 1987). However,
innovation resistance research is rapidly gaining prominence, in areas
such as mobile and internet banking (Kaur et al., 2020; Laukkanen et al.,
2009), smart technology in the retail sector (Roy et al., 2018), car
sharing (Claudy et al., 2015; Valor, 2020), e-commerce (Mainardes
et al., 2020; Nel and Boshoff, 2020), and social media (Chen and Kuo,
2017).
Given the growing interest in innovation resistance, a systematic
review of the research is essential, as are guidelines for future research.
To the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive reviews on the specific
topic of innovation resistance has appeared to date. Talwar et al.
(2020b) reviewed 54 studies associated with consumer resistance but
only focused on digital innovation. While Heidenreich and Handrich
aimed to conceptualize and measure consumers’ predisposition to resist
innovation. As the field has grown rapidly, there is a need for a sys­
tematic review on consumer innovation resistance to uncover what is,
and is not, known.
This research presents a systematic and comprehensive review of the
innovation resistance literature to identify the intellectual bases (theo­
retical foundations), research fronts, and key themes in the literature. A
research front comprises a grouping of concepts that represents the
state-of-the-art thinking within a research field, while an intellectual
base is the citation and co-citation footprint of the research front (Chen,
2006). In bibliometric terms, a research front is shaped by the focal
articles that use similar parts of the intellectual bases, and an intellectual
base is constituted by cited articles (Chen et al., 2010). Additionally, this
research aims to provide avenues for future research based on the
identified research gaps. This review addresses four questions:
(1) What intellectual bases and theoretical foundations underpin
innovation resistance research?
(2) What are the research fronts of innovation resistance research?
(3) What is the key focus of the innovation resistance literature?

* Corresponding author at: Room 3.40, Business school 2 (G27), Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Parklands Dr, Southport QLD 4215, Australia.
E-mail addresses: dan.huang2@griffithuni.edu.au (D. Huang), x.jin@griffith.edu.au (X. Jin), a.coghlan@griffith.edu.au (A. Coghlan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120594
Received 23 January 2020; Received in revised form 4 January 2021; Accepted 7 January 2021
Available online 24 January 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
D. Huang et al.
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of literature identification.
(4) What are the avenues for future research on innovation
resistance?
Data from 152 articles identified by a systematic screening process
were analyzed using multiple-perspective document co-citation analysis
and content analysis. The first two questions were addressed through
multiple-perspective co-citation analysis (Chen et al., 2010) to provide
an objective illustration of the theoretical bases and research fronts. The
third question was addressed through content analysis focused on key
themes to enable the interpretation of full-text information. The fourth
question was answered based on the findings of the two methods, the
authors’ assessment of the focal articles and expert interviews. The
combined use of these methods facilitates a more objective, robust, and
comprehensive review with quantitative support (Randhawa et al.,
2016), and uncovers an all-inclusive picture of the emerging innovation
resistance research domain.
The main contributions of this review are two-fold. First, the review
presents guidelines for how theoretical foundations in areas such as
consumer decision making, marketing, sociology, and psychology can
facilitate an understanding of consumer resistance to innovation. Sec­
ond, by examining the research fronts and key themes, the review sug­
gests underdeveloped issues and domains for future research.
2. Methodology
2.1. Data collection
To achieve a comprehensive overview of studies on consumer
innovation resistance, we reviewed journal papers related to this topic.
To be included, articles had to be (1) highly relevant to innovation
resistance, (2) focused on consumer research, and (3) published in
English-language journals.
The search strategy comprised of a database search and reference
and citation checks. A search query was developed before November 11,
2020 for Scopus, which is the largest citation and abstract database, and
offers a broader array of journal coverage than Web of Science (Falagas
et al., 2008). Discussion within and beyond the research team led to the
search string “innovation OR ‘new product’ OR ‘new service’ AND
resist* OR reject* AND consumer OR customer” for a title, abstract, and
keyword search on Scopus. “Reject*” was identified as a concept rele­
vant to “resist*” since resistance manifests in various ways, including
rejection (Szmigin and Foxall, 1998). In addition, to find as many
eligible articles as possible, we performed a forward search of reference
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
and citation lists to complement the database search without restriction
on the time frame of publication.
To ensure transparency, article selection mainly followed the
guidelines for the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al., 2009). The selection process
progressed through three stages to identify the final articles (Fig. 1).
First, a Scopus search using the research string resulted in 977 records.
Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts of these
records and excluded records that were clearly ineligible, such as those
on resistance to diseases, erosion resistance, virus resistance technology,
and antibiotic resistance. This step excluded 786 records. Second, the
same two researchers reviewed full-text articles, discussing disagree­
ments with a third researcher. The result was exclusion of 101 records
that failed to meet the criteria and five records of full-text articles that
could not be downloaded through the university library and the authors’
email could not be found. Third, the researchers conducted a search and
review of the reference and citation lists of the 90 eligible articles from
the second step. As a result, a total of 152 articles were included as focal
articles (see Appendix A).
Information extracted from Scopus for the 152 focal articles included
citation (i.e., author, document title, and year), bibliographic affiliations
and publisher, abstract, keywords, and references. An output file (RIS
format) of the information was then generated. The 152 full-text focal
articles and their references formed the major raw input data for further
analysis.
2.2. Data analysis
2.2.1. Multiple-perspective document co-citation analysis and CiteSpace
To gain insight into the structure, intellectual bases, and the research
front of innovation resistance studies, we adopted a multiple-perspective
document co-citation method. Document co-citation analysis reflects
how often two documents (references) are cited in the same paper, with
the basic assumption that co-citation clusters reveal the intellectual
structure of the citing papers (Chen et al., 2010; Small, 1980). In other
words, a cited document plays a symbolic role, representing an idea, a
concept, or a method shared by the focal articles (Small, 1978). Docu­
ment co-citation analysis provides more specific patterns and informa­
tion than author co-citation analysis, and a multiple-perspective
document co-citation analysis includes the key references, the structural
patterns of the co-citation clusters, and the use of terms stemming from
the title, abstract, and index terms of focal articles to automatically label
the cluster (Chen et al., 2010). Identification of the key references and
major clusters revealed the intellectual and theoretical bases that
contributed to the development of innovation resistance research, while
identification of the terms extracted from the focal articles characterized
the research front. The analysis was performed by CiteSpace, an infor­
mation visualization application designed to answer questions associ­
ated with the structure and dynamics of a knowledge domain (Chen,
2006).
CiteSpace extends the traditional procedure of co-citation analysis by
integrating functions, such as computationally identifying pivotal
points, detecting citation bursts, and automatically labeling clusters.
Pivotal points allow researchers to gain insights into the potentially
revolutionary scientific literature, as measured by betweenness cen­
trality in CiteSpace (Chen et al., 2010). Betweenness centrality of a node
reflects the degree to which the node has the potential to control the
communication of other nodes in a network (Chen, 2014). Given the
context of this research, a reference (node) with high betweenness
centrality is usually the reference that provides the connections between
two or more clusters of references. This function is useful to identify
important references that have transformative potential. In addition,
citation burst detection can be used to classify the most active domain of
research (Chen, 2014), as the burst captures a significant increase of
citations for a particular reference within a relatively short time. Finally,
automatic cluster labeling can be applied to characterize research fronts
D. Huang et al.
Fig. 2. Distribution of the 152 focal articles (1989–2021). *The year 2021 had
not started yet when the data were collected.
of a co-citation cluster (Chen et al., 2010). Concepts from titles, ab­
stracts, or keywords of focal articles that cite a particular cluster are
extracted to label this cluster using three different algorithms: tf*idf,
log-likelihood ratio (LLR), and mutual information (MI) (Chen, 2014).
The RIS format data from Scopus were exported to the CiteSpace 5.7.
R2 and converted into plain text format. The data were then pre-
processed to handle inconsistencies of the same reference. Before
running the software, the parameters of analysis were set in CiteSpace as
follows: (1) the time slice was from 1989 to the present with two years
per slice, (2) the term source included title, abstract, author, and key­
words plus, (3) the node type was reference, (4) the selection criterion
was the top 50 most-cited references from each slice, and (5) the pruning
consisted of Pathfinder and Pruning sliced networks. The item of
“looking back years” in the edit project properties was set as
“unlimited”.
2.2.2. Content analysis and Leximancer
While the multiple-perspective document co-citation method
addressed the limitation of co-citation analysis, the method extracted
content on the basis of titles, abstracts, and keywords, ignoring the full
text. Importantly, not all references are of equal significance, and some
can be irrelevant to the topic of a citing article (Randhawa et al., 2016).
In this regard, content analysis of full-text focal articles complemented
the multiple-perspective document co-citation analysis.
Content analysis is “a research technique for making replicable and
valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts
of their use” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 24). Such inferences can be ach­
ieved by systematically examining the conceptual structure of text
documents and providing important recurring themes, concepts, and
relationships extracted from the qualitative data (Leximancer, 2018).
Automatic content analysis is a computer-aided method of interpreting
the text in a valid and objective way. To facilitate the content analysis of
the 152 focal articles, the Leximancer program was used to analyze the
Table 1
Top five references of the 152 focal articles with the strongest citation bursts.
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
textual document and visualize the conceptual structure of the text
(Leximancer, 2018). We excluded the author information, references,
tables, and figures of the 152 focal articles from the data analysis. Lex­
imancer measures the presence and frequency of concepts within the
text (conceptual analysis) and identifies how these concepts are related
to each other (relational analysis) by measuring the co-occurrence of
concepts (Leximancer, 2018). It then clusters the concepts into
higher-level themes and generates a map.
3. Results
3.1. Overview
The 152 focal articles covered seventeen subject areas in Scopus,
including business, management, and accounting (97 articles), com­
puter science (34), social sciences (34), psychology (19), engineering
(17), economics, econometrics, and finance (15), energy (10), arts and
humanities (9), environmental science (9), decision sciences (7), agri­
cultural and biological sciences (5), nursing (4), materials science (2),
chemical engineering (1), mathematics (1), physics and astronomy (1),
and one multidisciplinary study.
Fig. 2 illustrates the progression of focal articles from 1989–2021.
Table 1 lists the top five references with the strongest citation bursts
resulting from the CiteSpace analysis. All five references are strongly
associated with innovation resistance. A citation burst indicates the
degree of research attention to the reference, and Table 1 indicates a
current active research trend. The trend in Fig. 2 and the most recent
duration of citation bursts in Table 1 indicate that innovation resistance
is gaining research attention. Drawing on the emerging trend and the
limited number of publications, we categorized the current state of the
literature as comprising of two stages:
(1) Infancy phase (1980s–2000s). Before 2010, the annual number of
innovation resistance publications were below five. Even after
the seminal work of Ram and Sheth (Ram 1989; Ram and Sheth
1989; Sheth 1981), innovation resistance research saw little
overall increase, indicating the strong effect of the pro-innovation
bias in academia.
(2) Developing phase (2010s onward). Studies reflecting the earlier
theoretical perspectives (e.g., Ram and Sheth 1989) and later the
empirical perspectives (e.g., Kleijnen et al., 2009) led innovation
resistance research to enter the developing phase. The citation
bursts of the works published in the 2010s signify the growth
potential within this research domain.
3.2. Multiple-perspective document co-citation analysis
The CiteSpace analysis detected 6622 valid references of the focal
articles with a validation rate of 98.5%. The document co-citation
analysis formed the basis for a hybrid network with 222 nodes and
833 links (Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 3, each node denotes a reference
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Fig. 3. Document co-citation network of innovation resistance research: landmark references (large citation tree rings) and high betweenness centrality references
(purple rings). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Nodes with purple rings depict references with high betweenness cen­
Table 2
trality. The landmark references (Table 2), the hotspot references
Top 36 landmark references (with high citations).
(Table 1), and references with high betweenness centrality (Appendix B)
Count Author Year Count Author Year are indicators of the intellectual bases of innovation resistance research.
95 Ram and Sheth 1989 22 Antioco and Kleijnen 2010
68 Ram 1987 21 Ellen, Bearden, and 1991 3.2.1. Landmark references as intellectual bases
Sharma Table 2 lists the top 36 landmark references of the 152 focal articles,
59 Kleijnen et al. 2009 21 Davis, Bagozzi, and 1989
Warshaw
some of which are described in the following paragraphs. Innovation
47 Rogers 2003 19 Ajzen 1991 resistance papers dominated the landmark references, with the work of
43 Sheth 1981 19 Laukkanen et al. 2009 Ram and Sheth providing a foundation for further innovation resistance
42 Szmigin and Foxall 1998 17 Moore and Benbasat 1991 research. The most-cited reference was Ram and Sheth (1989), which
40 Fornell and Larcker 1981 16 Oreg 2003
conceptually introduced the definition of innovation resistance as well
39 Kuisma et al. 2007 16 Venkatesh and Davis 2000
36 Ram 1989 15 Heidenreich & 2016 as the degree (from passive to very active resistance), the major barriers
Kraemer (functional: usage, value and risk barriers; psychological: tradition and
35 Laukkanen et al. 2007 15 Fishbein and Ajzen 1975 image barriers), and marketing strategies (product, communication,
33 Davis 1989 15 Gourville 2006 pricing, market, and coping strategies) associated with consumer inno­
32 Laukkanen 2016 15 Podsakoff, 2003
MacKenzie, Lee, and
vation resistance.
Podsakoff Ram (1987) provided a conceptual model with three sets of factors
31 Talke and 2014 14 Lian and Yen 2013 leading to consumer innovation resistance: perceived innovation char­
Heidenreich acteristics, consumer characteristics, and the propagation mechanism.
31 Venkatesh, Morris, 2003 14 Laukkanen and 2010
Sheth (1981) was the first researcher to introduce the concept of inno­
Davis, and Davis Kiviniemi
26 Claudy et al. 2015 14 Rogers 1995 vation resistance, and Ram (1989) examined detailed strategies to
26 Laukkanen, 2008 13 Garcia, Bardhi, and 2007 reduce consumer resistance. Kleijnen et al. (2009) explored the ante­
Sinkkonen, and Friedrich cedents of different forms of resistance (postponement, rejection, and
Laukkanen opposition), which were proposed by Szmigin and Foxall (1998). A se­
24 Heidenreich and 2013 13 Bagozzi and Lee 1999
Spieth
ries of works by Laukkanen, Kuisma and colleagues (e.g., Kuisma et al.,
23 Heidenreich and 2015 13 Castellion and 2013 2007; Laukkanen, 2016, 2007) provided insights into innovation resis­
Handrich Markham tance in the context of online banking using both qualitative and
quantitative methods. The works of Talke, Heidenreich, and colleagues
(e.g., Heidenreich and Spieth, 2013; Talke and Heidenreich, 2014)
cited by the 152 focal articles and is labeled in the form of “first author
mostly contributed to the concept of passive innovation resistance, a
and publication year”. The tree ring around the node represents the
generic predisposition to resist innovation. Oreg (2003) provided a
citation history of a cited reference, and within the network the land­
measurement scale of resistance to change that relates to consumer
mark references are the most-cited articles, with large citation tree rings.
innovation resistance. Claudy et al. (2015) empirically confirmed that

4
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Fig. 4. Document co-citation clusters (Note: the Citespace software named both the cluster #5 and #6 as multi-group analysis).

Table 3
Details of knowledge clusters and their label terms selected by the LLR method.
Cluster Silhouette Size Mean Title Index Abstract
year

#0 0.906 37 1999 Computer-based technologies; consumers Passive innovation resistance; Mobile financial service; usage behavior;
resistance; mobile financial service intention to use; banks system quality
#1 0.949 35 2000 Passive innovation resistance; active Passive innovation resistance; social Active innovation resistance; consumers
innovation resistance; investigating innovativeness; hedonist predisposition; adoption-related behavior
adoption-related behavior innovativeness
#2 0.731 33 2001 Mobile banking rollout; emerging market; Risk management; privacy; data Wallet phone; internet-only bank service;
wallet phone security consumer acceptance
#3 0.843 31 1999 Technological innovation; consumer New products; measuring Near field communication-based mobile
adoption; content situation instruments; uncertainty payment; situational passive innovation
management resistance; consumer doubt
#4 0.913 22 2005 Possible barrier; smart home service; South South Korea; integrated model; e- Smart home service; service intangibility;
Korea book financial risk
#5 0.908 14 2009 Multi-group analysis; smartwatch New products; South Korea; social Multi-group analysis; low status-quo
adoption; status-quo satisfaction innovativeness satisfaction group; comparing level
#6 0.995 12 1999 Multi-group analysis; situational level; New products; South Korea; social Multi-group analysis; value barrier; study
mature consumer innovativeness finding
#7 0.934 9 2004 Means-end approach; internet banking; ATM; innovation resistance; internet Internet banking; consumer resistance;
BRT framework agriculture industry

reasons for and against (resistance factors) adoption are qualitatively
distinct constructs that influence consumer behavior by applying
behavioral resonating theory (BRT).
Landmark references also include work in innovation and technology
adoption research. The two versions of Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers,
2003, 1995) were highly cited. Also on the list were the publications that
proposed the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989; Davis
et al., 1989), the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), the extension model of TAM (Ven­
katesh and Davis, 2000), the theory of planned behavior, and the theory
of the reasoned action which discussed the relationships between be­
liefs, attitude, intention, and behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975), and a measurement scale for the adoption of information tech­
nology innovation (Moore and Benbasat, 1991).
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) study on a system to evaluate structural
equation models (SEM) was the most cited among the references related
to methods. Podsakoff et al. (2003) explored common method bias
which is associated with the SEM method. A manual check of all refer­
ences in the co-citation network revealed that most method references
were related to quantitative methods, while studies applying qualitative
methods were limited. This finding suggests that innovation resistance
research has been dominated by quantitative research, especially SEM.
3.2.2. Eight main clusters: Structure of intellectual bases
To identify the structure of the intellectual bases, the second step of
the CiteSpace analysis investigated the clusters of the cited references.
Fig. 4 shows the eight main clusters, which were labeled using title terms
based on the log-likelihood ratio (LLR). The analysis yielded an
acceptable modularity value of 0.6665, showing a reasonably well-
structured network. The silhouette values (S) for each main cluster
were above 0.731 (Table 3), suggesting that every cluster was homo­
geneous and consistent. Some overlap occurred between clusters as all
focal articles were highly related to innovation resistance and most cited
the landmark references.

5
D. Huang et al.
Fig. 5. Concept map of the 152 focal articles. Dots represent the concept automatically extracted from the text by Leximancer. The larger the concept dot, the higher
the connectivity of a concept. Connectivity is the sum of all the co-occurrence counts of the concept with each other concept. The colorful circles depict the themes
that are clusters of concepts. The more dominant a theme, the warmer its color in the map.
The eight main clusters were computer-based technologies (#0),
passive innovation resistance (#1), mobile banking rollout (#2), tech­
nological innovation (#3), possible barrier (#4), multi-group analysis
(#5), multi-group analysis (#6) and means-end approach (#7). Cluster
#5 and cluster #6 were different clusters but the Citespace software
named both of them as multi-group analysis. This shows the importance
of this area. Appendix B summarizes the most-cited cluster members,
and most were discussed in the landmark references above. “Insiders”
(the innovation resistance and innovation adoption literature) domi­
nated most clusters. For example, cluster #3 was dominated by Ram and
Sheth (1989) and Talke and Heidenreich (2014). Bagozzi and Lee
(1999), Kleijnen et al. (2007), Sheth (1981), and Laukkanen et al. (2009)
had relatedly high betweenness centrality. These references therefore
were important in linking clusters and disciplines.
3.2.3. Eight main clusters: Focal articles as research fronts
“Research fronts of a document co-citation cluster [are] character­
ized by terms extracted from the citers of the cluster” (Chen et al., 2010,
p. 1398). Table 3 summarizes the terms extracted from the titles, ab­
stracts, and keywords of the focal articles by the LLR method. Online
banking and digital technologies were the dominant topics in the
innovation resistance research. Multi-group analysis was identified as a
research front, suggesting research on the role of moderators (e.g., age
and individual predisposition) in consumer innovation resistance is
emerging. For example, Ghazali et al. (2020) conducted a multi-group
analysis to compare the high and low status-quo satisfaction groups in
terms of attitudes towards smartwatches and adoption intention. The
means-end approach was also a research front.
Passive and active innovation resistance were represented in the
research fronts. Passive and active innovation resistance provided an
alternative or additional factor to classify innovation resistance based on
behavioral outcomes (e.g., postponement and rejection). Research,
following Talke and Heidenreich (2014), differentiated passive inno­
vation resistance from active innovation resistance based on where
resistance emerged in Roger’s (2003) innovation decision process
(knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation
stages). Passive innovation resistance arises unconsciously without
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
consideration of innovation potential (Heidenreich and Kraemer, 2015),
whereas active innovation resistance was defined by Talke and Hei­
denreich (2014) as “an attitudinal outcome that follows an unfavorable
new product evaluation” (p. 1). Passive innovation resistance, as out­
comes of adopter-specific factors (e.g., inclination) and
situation-specific factors (e.g., status quo), arises prior to innovation
evaluation. In contrast, active resistance arises after evaluating an
innovation and is influenced by innovation-specific characteristics
(Talke and Heidenreich 2014; Laukkanen, 2016).
3.3. Findings of the content analysis
The content analysis began with an automatic overall analysis of the
152 focal articles using Leximancer 4.51. We then used the editing
function to merge some singular and plural words, including barrier/
barriers, consumer/consumers/customers/users, innovation/in­
novations, product/products, participants/respondents, service/ser­
vices, study/studies/research, system/systems, technology/
technologies, organic/food, and used/using. We followed the merging
process by running the analysis again to generate a concept map.
Fig. 5 shows the concept map with concepts, themes, and links. Three
key research foci were identified: ‘research topics’, dominated by bar­
riers influencing consumer innovation resistance; ‘research contexts’,
featuring a diversity of markets, especially digital services; and ‘research
methods’, dominated by quantitative methods. Themes and concepts
that occurred within the 152 focal articles were included in the three
research foci. The following interpretation of the focal articles was based
on an exploration of the concept map and in-depth reading of text
samples associated with each concept.
The research topic area included two dominant themes labeled as
consumers and barriers, with concepts such as innovation, resistance,
effect, and barriers, suggesting a strong focus on factor research in the
consumer innovation resistance literature. The influential factors can be
categorized into innovation characteristics (reflected in the concept of
barriers, which was closely associated with concepts of usage, value,
risk, and social), the consumer’s individual characteristics (the concept
of the individual frequently co-occurs with innovativeness or change),
D. Huang et al.
and the external environment (reflected in the concept social) (Talke
and Heidenreich, 2014). The innovation characteristic was related to
active innovation resistance, whereas the individual and situational
characteristics were connected with passive innovation resistance. The
literature on the factors of innovation characteristics widely discussed
and explored five barriers—usage, risk, value, tradition, and image—as
the main factors determining innovation resistance (Chen et al., 2019;
Dhir et al., 2021; Joachim et al., 2018). The literature on the factors of
individual characteristics mainly explored the relationships between
innovativeness, resistance to change, self-efficacy, inertia, technology
neophobia, consumer demographics, health consciousness, the Big Five
personality traits, passive innovation resistance, and resistance to
innovation (e.g., Chen et al., 2013; Ellen et al., 1991; Ionela-Andreea,
2019; Koch et al., 2020; Labrecque et al., 2017). Some studies also
incorporated both innovation and individual characteristics to explain
innovation resistance (e.g., Mani and Chouk, 2018; Nel and Boshoff,
2019; Tandon et al., 2021). A focus on the influence of situation-specific
factors such as status quo satisfaction was evident in a few studies (Chen
et al., 2019; Ghazali et al., 2020). Only a limited number of studies
focused on external factors influencing innovation resistance, such as
social influence, the big brother effect, ecosystem-related factors, cul­
ture, or religion (e.g., Chouk and Mani, 2019; Hong, 2020; Mani and
Chouk, 2019; Matsuo et al., 2018).
The relatively close proximity between the concepts of adoption,
barriers, resistance, and negative in the topic area suggested a complex
interaction between resistance and adoption, as researchers usually
discussed resistance together with adoption. Researchers also claimed
that resistance and adoption can co-exist (Kuisma et al., 2007), and
others examined adoption and resistance as decision outcomes in a
single model (e.g., Hsieh, 2016), or the influence of resistance on
adoption (e.g., Juric and Lindenmeier, 2019; Kim et al., 2017; Pitari
et al., 2020).
A further reading of the text, which is related to the theory concept in
the Leximancer map, indicated that apart from innovation resistance
and adoption theories, a small number of other theories have been
employed to investigate innovation resistance, such as status quo bias
theory (e.g., Nel and Boshoff, 2020), dual-factor theory (e.g., Hsieh,
2016), behavioral reasoning theory (e.g., Claudy et al., 2015; Dhir et al.,
2021), practice theory (e.g., Hazée et al., 2017), risk-as feelings theory
(e.g., Valor, 2020) and self-determination theory (e.g. Chung and Liang,
2020).
‘Research contexts’ included themes labeled as services and markets.
Prominent concepts such as mobile, digital, service, systems, informa­
tion, communication, technology, online, smart, and internet revealed a
strong emphasis on innovations associated with digital service. Online
banking was a primary focus, and food innovation (reflected in the
concept of organic) and smart homes were also researched. A further
reading of the articles showed an exploration of a diversity of innova­
tion, such as online shopping, e-communication, access-based services,
online learning, internet of things, green innovation, tourism innova­
tion, robot, e-books, self-driving cars, and smartwatches.
The ‘research methods’ area demonstrated that innovation resistance
research was dominated by quantitative methods reflected in such
concepts as surveys, scales, items, models, discriminant, factors, and
analysis. A further reading found that the quantitative methods used
were dominated by SEM, while others, such as experiments (e.g., Boeuf,
2019; Leung et al., 2018; Longoni et al., 2019), artificial network
analysis (e.g., Arif et al., 2020; Hew et al., 2019), and complexity
modeling (e.g., Moldovan and Goldenberg, 2004) attracted only limited
attention. Some studies also utilized qualitative methods such as focus
groups, interviews, and case studies, while a limited number adopted a
mixed-methods approach (e.g., Joachim et al., 2018; Mani and Chouk,
2019; Talwar et al., 2020a).
7
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
3.4. Expert interviews
On the basis of the results of the review, interviews with influential
experts in the innovation resistance field were conducted to obtain
recommendations for future research on consumer innovation resistance
and explore the challenges future research might encounter. Invitational
emails were sent to 24 experts and eight of the recipients provided
feedback, with a response rate of 33.3%. The interviews took the form of
an email reply or video, and the interview materials were used to
complement and support the discussion on future research avenues.
Among the respondents, five of the experts were authors of the
citation burst papers, another two were the authors from the landmark
references, and the other was an author who had published in the area
only recently. The results of the expert interviews supported the findings
of the literature review regarding potential research gaps and future
research directions. These included researching the concept of innova­
tion resistance, the factors influencing innovation resistance, strategies
to overcome resistance, a process-based perspective, research methods,
and research contexts.
One expert noted the importance of conceptualizing innovation
resistance:
[Future studies can focus on] theoretical/empirical research on the
dimensions of innovation resistance… the concept of innovation
resistance needs more research to establish its legitimacy.
Four experts mentioned the need to examine additional factors
influencing innovation resistance, such as ideology, emotion, ethical
and moral considerations, habits, and cross-cultural difference. For
example, one expert said:
One is the role of emotions, for example, in how people understand and
interact with innovation…. One of the reasons is that you can see from
most models in psychology…we have like dual process models where
people make cognitive rational decisions and then on the other hand,
there’s the emotional component that kind of guides us in our decision
making, and like innovation and resistance has always been covered from
a more rational kind of cognitive perspective, and emotions haven’t really
featured that well ….
One expert noted the importance of the process-perspective to un­
derstand resistance:
…. to investigate passive and active innovation resistance using a longi­
tudinal study, to shed light on how consumer resistance to innovation
evolves during the adoption process over time.
As for the strategies to overcome innovation resistance, one expert
interviewee pointed out a need to focus on moral framing, “a technique
in which a position an individual would not normally support is framed
in a way that it is consistent with that individual’s moral values”
(Feinberg and Willer, 2019, p. 2), to advance the understanding of
strategies to overcome consumer innovation resistance. The expert said:
…when you frame a certain problem in a way that is morally congruent
with …a conservative mind frame or like a liberal mind frame, then you’ll
have more acceptance of the topic.
Most of the experts mentioned that the challenge of innovation
resistance is gathering valid data, they suggested that future research
should adopt physiological methods or longitudinal studies, as one
expert indicated:
The greatest challenge might be, that several psychological processes that
lead to the evolvement of passive innovation resistance proceed rather
unconscious, such that the application of physiological methods (FMRT,
EEG) might be necessary to fully understand the psychological processes
leading to passive innovation resistance.
Three experts mentioned the need to advance innovation resistance
D. Huang et al.
Fig. 6. An overview of innovation resistance research in the literature.
research in contexts such as artificial intelligence (AI), green products,
and medical innovations. For example, one expert mentioned the
importance of focusing on pro-environmental products:
However, looking at the changes in the environment, global warming,
pollution etc. we need sustainable use of natural resources. There are
plenty of innovations that would save the environment if they were widely
adopted by consumers. Such innovations, and especially understanding
consumer resistance to these innovations, would be highly interesting and
topical.
4. Discussion and avenues for future research
The results from CiteSpace and Leximancer confirmed and com­
plemented each other and demonstrated that innovation resistance and
adoption theories have dominated the intellectual bases of innovation
resistance research. The research fronts are mainly active and passive
innovation resistance, along with online banking, digital technologies,
and multi-group analysis. Research topics primarily focused on factors
leading to innovation resistance. The research contexts were diversified
in innovation, mainly digital services, and research methods were
dominated by quantitative approaches, especially SEM. Fig. 6 summa­
rizes innovation research in the current literature.
8
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
The following sections, which are based on the study’s findings, the
authors’ interpretation of the focal articles, and the expert interviews,
elaborate on the potential research avenues, questions, and theories that
could be applied to advance knowledge (Table 4). In addition to the
theories of innovation resistance and adoption, concepts or theories in
marketing, consumer decision making, and psychology are listed in
Table 4 for a comprehensive understanding of this research field.
4.1. Operationalizing innovation resistance
Innovation resistance is a multifaceted entity and is conceptualized
variously by researchers. In the literature, consumer innovation resis­
tance is regarded as a generic predisposition (Heidenreich and Han­
drich, 2015), a negative attitude (Hsieh, 2016; Mani and Chouk, 2019),
an intentional behavior (Lee, 2020; Nel and Boshoff, 2019), an actual
behavior (Rieple and Snijders, 2018), or a combination of these concepts
(Mani and Chouk, 2018).
On the basis of its emergence in Roger’s (2003) innovation decision
process, Talke and Heidenreich (2014) classified innovation resistance
into active innovation resistance, which is regarded as an attitudinal
outcome of the persuasion stage, and passive innovation resistance,
which is considered as a generic predisposition to resistance innovations
arising before the persuasion stage. Talke and Heidenreich’s (2014)
D. Huang et al.
Table 4
Research avenues for innovation resistance.
Research avenues Potential research
questions
Operationalizing How can active innovation
innovation resistance as an attitudinal
resistance outcome be measured?
Whether active innovation
resistance contains the
emotional or conative
aspect of attitude?
How does innovation
resistance in the pre-
adoption phase differ from
the post-adoption phase (e.
g., discontinuance)?
How to measure innovation
resistance in a coherent
manner?
Factors leading to What new innovation
innovation characteristic barriers
resistance influence innovation
resistance in the cutting-
edge innovation contexts?
What external factors
shape consumer innovation
resistance and how?
How do innovation
characteristics, individual
characteristics and external
factors interact in
innovation resistance?
Can individual
characteristics (e.g.,
resistance to change)
explain different levels of
resistance (e.g., rejection
and postponement)?
How do factors leading to
resistance differ from those
leading to adoption?
What role does emotion
play in consumer
innovation resistance?
What are the possible
mediators or moderators
between resistance barriers
and consumer behaviors?
A process-based How does consumer
perspective innovation resistance
emerge and evolve?
How does one form of
innovation resistance
transfer to another?
What roles do various
resistance factors play in
different decision stages?
The consequences of What are possible
innovation consequences of innovation
resistance resistance?
What are the consequences
of the co-existence of
adoption and innovation
resistance?
Is there a relationship
between passive
innovation resistance and
the attitude–behavior gap?
Emerging key Why do consumers resist
research contexts AI-related innovations? Or
innovations that have
social and environmental
benefits?
Intellectual bases that can
be applied
Cognitive appraisal theory (
Lazarus, 1991),
three-component theory of
attitudes (Breckler, 1984),
consumer resistance
literature (Roux, 2007), and
service failure (e.g., Tan
et al., 2016).
Qualitative approaches (e.g.
grounded theory and
inductive approach) or
mixed method approach.
Socio-ecological model (e.g.,
Panter-Brick et al., 2006) or
Bayesian belief network (e.
g., Naranjo-Madrigal et al.,
2015).
Passive innovation
resistance (e.g., Heidenreich
and Handrich, 2015).
Dual-factor theory (
Herzberg, 1966).
Emotion and decision
making (Lerner et al., 2015),
and experimental methods
aided by neuroscience-based
approaches.
Nationalistic decision-
making (e.g., Smallman and
Moore, 2010), process
theory (e.g., Langley, 1999),
and consumer innovation
decision process (Bagozzi
and Lee, 1999; Rogers, 2003;
Talke & Heidenreich).
Connectivity, distrust,
dissatisfaction and negative
word-of-mouth.
cognitive dissonance theory
(Festinger, 1957).
Habit (Labrecque et al.,
2017), resistance to change,
status quo satisfaction (
Heidenreich and Handrich,
2015), and the endowment
effect (Kahneman et al.,
1991).
Uncanny valley theory (
Mori et al., 2012) and
literature related to
technophobia (Brosnan,
1998), technostress (
Ayyagari et al., 2011), and
speciesism.
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
Table 4 (continued )
Research avenues Potential research Intellectual bases that can
questions be applied
Strategies to What are effective Marketing strategy literature
overcome strategies to overcome (e.g., Peter et al., 2008), case
innovation various consumer studies, nudge theory (
resistance innovation resistance? Thaler and Sunstein, 2008),
How can marketing and framing (Tversky and
strategies change to deal Kahneman, 1981).
with different consumer Chasm theory (Moore,
resistance in a real-world 2014).
setting? Coping theory (Lazarus,
What coping strategies 1984) and constraint
might consumers adopt to negotiation theory (Jackson,
attenuate barriers? 1993).
How do marketing
managers facilitate
consumers’ coping
strategies to overcome
different barriers?
What role do consumers’
coping strategies play in
their innovation
resistance?
definition of active innovation resistance and passive innovation resis­
tance enhances theory development and empirical studies. Their
conceptualization has been adopted by most of the recent research (e.g.,
Ghazali et al., 2020; Hew et al., 2019; Reinhardt et al., 2019).
Most studies of active innovation resistance have captured the
cognitive component of attitude (e.g., innovation-specific barriers).
Interestingly, a recent study by Castro et al. (2019) suggested that
emotion play a role in the evaluation of innovation and they classified
active innovation resistance into two dimensions: cognitive active
resistance and emotional active resistance. This initial exploration re­
quires further evidence to support whether emotion can be added to
active innovation resistance. This question may be addressed by
applying theories related to attitude (Breckler, 1984), which discussed
the affective and cognitive components of attitude, or cognitive
appraisal theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1991), which investigated the
complex relationships between cognition, appraisal, and emotion.
From a behavioral or conative perspective, the literature regards
innovation resistance as taking diverse forms, such as unawareness,
opposition, rejection, or postponement (Joseph, 2010; Ju and Lee, 2020;
Kim et al., 2019; Kleijnen et al., 2009). A few studies focused on resis­
tance behavior in the post-adoption phase, such as habit slips (falling
back into old habits) (Labrecque et al., 2017) and discontinuance
(Huang et al., 2020). The service failure literature (e.g., Tan et al., 2016)
may be useful to further explore this neglected area and extend the
appreciation of innovation resistance.
Due to the multi-faceted nature of innovation resistance, the litera­
ture measures the construct of innovation resistance differently when
considering it as an outcome variable. The items used in the operational
measures of innovation resistance reflect different elements of cogni­
tion, preference, and intention. There is little agreement as to how the
construct should be measured (see examples of operational measures
from Lee, 2013; Leong et al., 2020; Mani and Chouk, 2019; Matsuo et al.,
2018; Oh et al., 2019; Wiedmann et al., 2011). Appropriate measure­
ment scales deployed in a consistent manner are still needed to form a
common understanding and facilitate the theorization of the concept.
4.2. Factors leading to innovation resistance
Innovation characteristics as a group of factors leading to innovation
resistance is the most frequently studied area. The model of Ram and
Sheth (1989) which included five barriers represents the main knowl­
edge base in this area. Recent studies have extended the five barriers by
adopting a mixed methods research approach (e.g., Claudy et al., 2015;
D. Huang et al.
Joachim et al., 2018; Talwar et al., 2020a). As influencing factors are
context and innovation specific (Claudy et al., 2015), future research
should employ qualitative methods such as grounded theory and net­
nography to gain a validated understanding of the research context and
then apply quantitative methods to verify results.
Relatively few studies currently contribute to an understanding of
the external factors such as network externalities, culture, business en­
vironments (e.g., information overload), and social environments in
which consumers are embedded. Individuals’ cognition and behaviors
are inevitably influenced by the social environment that surrounds them
in both the virtual and non-virtual worlds. For example, people usually
identify themselves as a part of one or several social groups and regard
the groups as reference points when making decisions. Thus, under­
standing the influence of external factors in shaping consumers’ resis­
tance is critical, especially with respect to the interactions among
external factors, innovation, and individual characteristics. Applying a
network perspective based on the socio-ecological model or a Bayesian
belief network would be helpful to investigate the complex external
factors that interact with other factors and would aid in discerning how
consumer innovation resistance is socially constructed.
The role of individual characteristics in consumer innovation resis­
tance has been researched as predictors (Chouk and Mani, 2019; Kim &
Bae, 2020; Koch et al., 2020; Leong et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2017) or
moderators (Dhir et al., 2021; Röth and Spieth, 2019). For example,
Leong et al. (2020) explored the negative effects of demographics,
including age, education, and income on consumer mobile-wallet
resistance. Boeuf (2019) regarded mortality anxiety as an
individual-specific factor and found that mortality anxiety could lead to
an unconscious form of resistance, namely, passive innovation resis­
tance. As for the moderating effect, researchers have explored the role of
gender (Tandon et al., 2021; Juric and Lindenmeier, 2019), cognitive
age (Chaouali and Souiden, 2019), environmental awareness (Dhir
et al., 2021), hygiene consciousness (Talwar et al., 2020), and resistance
to change (Röth and Spieth, 2019). Additionally, Heidenreich and
Handrich (2015) developed a scale to measure passive innovation
resistance, which made a substantial contribution to an understanding
of innovation resistance from the perspective of individual disposition.
Future research may apply this measurement to gain an enhanced un­
derstanding of the predictive power or moderating effect of individual
characteristic factors at various stages of resistance. The moderating role
of other individual factors (e.g. lifestyle and inertia) would also be a
worthy area for future research.
CiteSpace and Leximancer results did not show the importance of
emotion within the literature, opening another fruitful area for further
research. The importance of work in this area was also supported by the
expert interviews. Emotion is considered as a powerful factor that in­
fluences consumer judgment and decision making (Kahneman, 2011)
and has only recently gained attention in innovation resistance studies
(Boeuf, 2019; Castro et al., 2019; Rieple and Snijders, 2018; Valor,
2020). Literature regarding emotion and decision making (Lerner et al.,
2015) can provide a useful lens for understanding the antecedents and
process of resistance decisions. To detect more accurate physiological
and emotional responses of consumers, experimental studies aided by
neuroscience-based approaches such as skin conductance and electro­
encephalography (EEG) may be applied. In addition to basic emotions
that can be the source of resistance (Bagozzi, 1999), such as anger,
sadness, fear, guilt, and shame, moral emotions may also influence
consumer behavior (Xie et al., 2019) and could be a possible research
avenue.
4.3. A process-based perspective
The factor research outlined above mainly follows variance theory,
which explains reality on the basis of relationships between dependent
variables and a number of independent variables (Langley, 1999). Re­
ality can also be viewed as a process (Smallman and Moore, 2010).
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
Several studies have adopted a process-based perspective to understand
innovation resistance. Nabih et al. (1997) proposed a conceptual
framework to locate different concepts such as passive resistance, active
resistance, passive acceptance, active acceptance, postponement,
adoption, and rejection in a decision-making process. Talke and Hei­
denreich (2014) offered a conceptual framework for a process-based
perspective, incorporating active innovation resistance and passive
innovation resistance into Roger’s (2003) innovation decision-process
model. More empirical studies are needed to verify and modify cur­
rent understandings of resistance’s evolution and formation.
A process perspective accommodates both rationality and irratio­
nality, supporting the understanding of decision heuristics and contex­
tual factors that shape the consumer behavior trajectory (Smallman and
Moore, 2010). Literature that addresses naturalistic decision making (e.
g., Smallman and Moore, 2010) and offers strategies such as narrative
strategy, synthetic strategy, and abduction to analyze process data
(Langley, 1999) could aid in theorizing innovation resistance from a
process perspective based on the understanding of how it emerges and
evolves with a psycho-social underpinning. Additionally, various factors
may play a different role throughout the consumer innovation decision
process (Talke and Heidenreich, 2014). As resistance can occur at any
stage of decision making, it would be fruitful to explore the role of
different factors in these stages.
4.4. The consequences of innovation resistance
Research on the consequences of innovation resistance primarily
focused on the intention to use. Researchers have quantitatively
confirmed that innovation resistance negatively influences consumer
acceptance (Kim and Bae, 2020a), purchase intention (Talwar et al.,
2020a), usage intention (Chung and Liang, 2020; Hew et al., 2019;
Hsieh, 2016; Kaur et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Koch et al., 2020; Lee,
2013), intention to recycle (Dhir et al., 2021), continual intention (Kim
and Park, 2020), and adoption intention (Ahn and Ahn, 2020; Ghazali
et al., 2020; Pillai and Sivathanu, 2020). Additionally, Heidenreich and
Kraemer (2015) investigated the influence of passive innovation resis­
tance on social innovativeness, hedonic innovativeness, and actualized
innovativeness. Oh et al. (2019) found innovation resistance negatively
influenced location-based service application connectedness, which is
an indicator of how individuals incorporate applications into their
everyday lives and reflects a distinct way of measuring media use.
Studies also explored the role of word-of-mouth as a consequence of
innovation resistance (Kaur et al., 2020; Mainardes et al., 2020). How­
ever, other possible consequences have received only limited attention.
Innovation resistance contains various elements, including individ­
ual traits and attitudinal and behavioral aspects, and therefore could
influence a wide variety of outcomes beyond adoption. For example,
innovation resistance does not necessarily cause rejection, but probably
reduces usage frequency and digital connectivity. Additionally, distrust
and dissatisfaction are possible consequences worthy of investigation.
Since resistance and adoption could co-exist, consumers may have
negative attitudes toward an innovation (active innovation resistance)
but still choose to use it. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957)
could be employed to explain possible psychological discomfort result­
ing from this inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors.
Sometimes a new service or product inspires positive attitudes in
consumers, but they still behaviorally reject the innovation. In behav­
ioral science, this common phenomenon is known as the attitu­
de–behavior gap. Can passive innovation resistance lead to this
attitude–behavior gap? And if so, how? Exploration on this inquiry may
extend the theoretical contribution of passive innovation resistance in
consumer research. Knowledge related to passive innovation resistance
such as habit (Labrecque et al., 2017), resistance to change, and status
quo satisfaction (Heidenreich and Handrich, 2015), as well as the
endowment effect (Kahneman et al., 1991), may be useful to answer
these questions.
D. Huang et al.
4.5. Emerging key research contexts
Diverse innovation contexts have been examined in the literature,
indicating the potential of innovation resistance to influence a wide
variety of research domains. Digital financial services and e-commerce
are the two main research contexts. From mobile or online banking
services in the 2000s (Kuisma et al., 2007; Laukkanen et al., 2007) to
recent studies on mobile payments (Chung and Liang, 2020; Kaur et al.,
2020), mobile wallets (Leong et al., 2020), and mobile banking
(Chaouali and Souiden, 2019), digital financial services have gained
increased research attention. E-commerce such as mobile social com­
merce and mobile website shopping has also been well researched (Hew
et al., 2019; Mainardes et al., 2020; Nel and Boshoff, 2020; Yao and Lee,
2016). Additionally, there has been increasing attention paid to food
innovations such as organic food (Kushwah et al., 2019; Tandon et al.,
2021), genetically modified organisms and cultivated meat (Faccio and
Fovino, 2019), internet of things (Chouk and Mani, 2019; Kim and Park,
2020; Lee, 2020; Mani and Chouk, 2018), and the collaborative con­
sumption or sharing economy (Claudy et al., 2015; Hazée et al., 2020;
Huang et al., 2020; Valor, 2020). Despite this interest, further enrich­
ment of the research contexts is needed, especially around
state-of-the-art innovations such as AI, genetic engineering techniques,
5 G, and virtual and augmented reality, as well as innovations that bring
social and environmental benefits.
AI is transforming many industries, including healthcare, motor ve­
hicles, gaming, and finance. AI brings benefits like efficiency and ac­
curacy, but at the same time comes with uncertainty and risk. A study by
Longoni et al. (2019) identified uniqueness neglect as a psychological
driver contributing to consumer reluctance to use medical AI. As re­
searchers have suggested consumers have negative responses to AI with
regard to ethical issues, psychological discomfort and privacy risks
(Davenport et al., 2020), the improved design of AI services is important
to minimize consumers’ negativities. The uncanny valley theory (Mori
et al., 2012), and literature related to technophobia (Brosnan, 1998),
technostress (Ayyagari et al., 2011), and speciesism may be used for this
purpose. In view of society’s longstanding concerns regarding global
warming and environment pollution, research efforts may include
investigating consumers’ resistance to green innovations such as electric
vehicles, green smart homes, and water bottle programs.
4.6. Strategies to overcome innovation resistance
Strategies to overcome innovation resistance were not obvious in the
findings and were revealed only in a small number of studies. These
studies explored the strategies such as giving feedback and making the
innovation the default option (a way of nudging) (Stryja and Satzger,
2019), framing AI care as a supporter rather than a replacer of human
healthcare provision (Longoni et al., 2019), as well as mental simulation
and benefit comparison (Heidenreich and Kraemer, 2016) to overcome
consumer innovation resistance. While these studies offered guidelines
for this area of research, there remains a rather limited understanding of
strategies to overcome consumers’ resistance.
Dealing with resistance requires effective strategies and more
research is needed in this regard. Resistance and its causes vary in de­
gree, and different strategies may be applied. Additionally, insights from
the marketing strategy literature would help researchers to identify
effective strategies to influence consumer cognition, affect, and
behavior, thereafter overcoming consumer resistance. Studies using
experimental approaches are beneficial for identifying strategies from a
consumer perspective. Exploring how companies employ strategies to
overcome consumer innovation resistance through methods such as case
studies would also be helpful to identify changing longitudinal strategies
based on resource allocation and coordination. Chasm theory (Moore,
2014) may be a possible theoretical lens to aid an understanding of
change strategies for the different phases of innovation diffusion. When
an innovation transforms from an early market to the mainstream,
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
companies need to shift their marketing strategies from emphasizing
newness to a focus on the practical advantages of the product in order to
cross a chasm (Moore, 2014), and thus engage more resisters or
non-users.
Furthermore, overcoming resistance is primarily related to triggering
behavior change, which can be achieved through the leveraging of be­
liefs and attitudes or by nudging (changing choice architecture). Hei­
denreich and Kraemer (2016) summarized a plethora of marketing
countermeasures that have the potential to change consumer behavior
by overcoming innovation resistance. These include countermeasures
such as analogies, categorization cure, benefit comparison, mental
simulation, and horizontal cooperation. Future research could explore
the effectiveness of these countermeasures. These strategies mainly
provide insights with respect to the changing of customers’ beliefs and
attitudes, such as increasing perceived benefits and decreasing
perceived risk. Nudge theory is an emerging behavior change tool that
uses environmental cues to influence consumers’ choice without
restricting decision making (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008), but has rarely
been empirically explored (Stryja and Satzger, 2019). The application of
nudge theory (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008) to better understand strate­
gies warrants further research. Another concept that relates to nudge
theory is framing, defined as the different ways of phrasing information
(Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Framing is also a powerful persuasion
tool that can influence behavior (Kahneman, 2011) and deserves future
inquiry.
Barriers do not necessarily lead to non-adoption or non-
participation, as “participation is dependent not on the absence of
constraints but on negotiation through them” (Jackson, 1993, p. 1).
Consumers are able to engage in practices to attenuate various barriers
(Hazée et al., 2017). Although Hazée et al.’s (2017) study provides in­
sights, on the whole the innovation resistance literature largely neglects
the role of consumers’ own coping strategies to overcome perceived
barriers, leaving a gap that merits future research. Coping theory
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) and constraint negotiation theory (Jack­
son, 1993) are useful theoretical lenses for understanding this phe­
nomenon. Coping theory was initially applied in relation to stress and
then applied in a broader sense. For example, Beaudry and Pinsonneault
(2005) applied coping theory to explain users’ responses to information
technology and defined coping as “the adaptational acts that an indi­
vidual performs in response to disruptive events that occur in his/her
environment” (p. 494). People experience a process of primary
appraisal, secondary appraisal, and reappraisal to adapt to a changed
environment, and they may adopt problem-focused strategies (e.g.,
learning and seeking more information) and emotion-focused strategies
(e.g., avoidance and cognitive change) to maintain psychological sta­
bility (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Linking coping theory with inno­
vation resistance may not only help to understand the strategies people
use for adaptation but may help to make sense of resistance from a
process perspective. Negotiation is a similar concept to coping, and
constraint negotiation theory suggests various possible relationships
between constraint, negotiation, and participation (Jackson, 1993) that
may help clarify the intricate relationships between barriers, coping,
and resistance or adoption behavior.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, consumers live in a world characterized by ever more
rapid change. Business trends are affected by AI, autonomous vehicles,
3D and 4D printing, 5 G, customization and personalization, sustain­
ability, and predictive authenticity. These trends result in a near endless
stream of innovation. The ubiquity of consumer resistance in different
innovation contexts alerts managers to the importance of resistance
within innovation diffusion and the need to find better ways to manage
resistance. The diverse factors leading to innovation resistance sum­
marized in this study could aid innovation managers to understand the
dynamics and variations of innovation resistance and develop strategies
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Appendix A
The 152 focal articles.
Authors (Year) Source title Research Research context Main related concepts
design

Dhir et al. (2021) Journal of Cleaner Production Quantitative E-waste recycling Value, reasons for, reasons against (risk barrier, image
barrier, usage barrier and value barrier), attitude,
environmental awareness, and intention
Tandon et al., Food Quality and Preference Quantitative Organic food Health consciousness, facilitators, inhibitors (value
(2021) barrier, usage barrier, and risk barrier), buying
involvement, gender, and stated buying behavior
Ahn & Ahn (2020) Sustainability (Switzerland) Quantitative Cloud-based enterprise resource Innovation resistance model (data security, vendor lock-
planning in, and customization)
Arif et al. (2020) Technology in Society Quantitative Internet banking Usage, risk, value, tradition, image barriers, and gender
Boeuf (2019) Journal of Business Research Quantitative Product innovation Mortality anxiety, state nostalgia, consumer
innovativeness, attitude, intention, and passive innovation
resistance
Chamaret et al. Energy Policy Mixed method Smart meters Risks (e.g., health, economic and ethical risks), absence of
(2020) benefits, satisfaction with status quo, rejection, and
postponement
Chung & Liang Mathematics Quantitative Mobile payments Autonomy, competence, relatedness, complexity barrier,
(2020) image barrier, risk barrier, and usage intention
Chiu et al. (2020) International Journal of Quantitative Home robot Tradition, risk (e.g., leaking information), value, usage (e.
Mechanical Engineering and g., learning problem), and image barriers
Robotics Research
Ghazali et al. (2020) Industrial Management and Data Quantitative Smartwatch Passive innovation resistance, status-quo satisfaction,
Systems relative advantage, ease of use, social influence, attitude,
and adoption
Hazée et al. (2020) Journal of Service Management Qualitative Collaborative consumption Functional barriers (complexity, value, and risk barriers),
psychological barriers (compatibility, contamination,
image, and responsibility barriers), and rejection
Hong (2020) Journal of Media and Religion Quantitative Digital bible Subjective norm, religiosity, perceived usefulness,
perceived easiness, innovation attitude, innovation
resistance, and adoption
Hong et al. (2020) Telecommunications Policy Quantitative Smart home services Technology uncertainty, service intangibility, perceived
risk, resistance, postponers, and rejecters
Huang et al. (2020) Annals of Tourism Research Qualitative Airbnb Discontinuance (resistance in the post-adoption phase),
online service issues (e.g., misleading listing information,
perceived policy bias, poor brand management and
inability to control service quality, and offline service
issues (e.g., safety and security concerns, low value-for
money)
Jain et al. (2020) South Asian Journal of Business Qualitative PeeBuddy Cultural barriers, social taboo, and resistance
and Management Cases
Ju & Lee (2020) Fashion and Textiles Qualitative Smart clothing Perceived utility, perceived risk, social conformity,
propagation of other smart devices, postponement, and
rejection
Kaur et al. (2020) Journal of Retailing and Quantitative Mobile payment solutions Usage, risk, value, tradition, and image barriers, use
Consumer Services intentions, and intentions to recommend
Kim et al. (2020) Journal of Enterprise Information Quantitative E-books Usage, risk, value, tradition, and image barriers, resistance
Management to change (resistance), self-efficacy, and intention to use
Kim & Bae (2020a) Global Business and Finance Quantitative Internet primary bank services Threat appraisal (perceived vulnerability and perceived
Review severity), coping appraisal (self-efficacy and
innovativeness), innovation characteristics (e.g.,
complexity), resistance, and adoption
Kim & Bae (2020b) Global Business and Finance Quantitative Internet-only bank service UTAUT2 (e.g., performance expectancy and effort
Review expectancy), personal innovativeness, perceived security,
innovation resistance, and acceptance
Kim & Park (2020) Behaviour and Information Quantitative Internet of things Privacy concerns, trust, ease of use, risk, benefits, resistant
Technology attitude, continual intention, and perceived costs
Koch et al. (2020) International Journal of Quantitative Innovation in general Passive innovation resistance (resistance to change and
Innovation Management status quo satisfaction), personality traits (openness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness,
neuroticism), demographics (gender, age, education,
income), and intention to use
Lee (2020) Telematics and Informatics Quantitative Internet of things Vulnerability, privacy concerns, and resistance behavior
Leong et al. (2020) International Journal of Quantitative Mobile wallet Usage, risk, value, tradition, and image barriers, perceived
Information Management novelty, age, education, income, and resistance
Mainardes et al. Journal of Retailing and Quantitative E-commerce Attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control,
(2020) Consumer Services not adopting, negative word-of-mouth, and disinterest
Nel & Boshoff European Journal of Marketing Quantitative Mobile website shopping Habit, sunk costs, switching costs, inertia, relative
(2020) advantage, alternative attractiveness, cognitive effort, and
resistance
Pitari et al. (2020) International Journal of Scientific Quantitative Near field communication-based Relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, intention
and Technology Research mobile payment innovation to adopt, resistance (measured by the five barriers), and
expectation to adopt
Pillai & Sivathanu Benchmarking Quantitative Internet of things
(2020)
(continued on next page)

12
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Appendix A (continued )
Authors (Year) Source title Research Research context Main related concepts
design

Value, reasons for, reasons against (image barrier,

technological anxiety, perceived price, and perceived
risk), attitude, age, and adoption intention
Sorum (2020) Journal of Cultural Economy Qualitative Ethical consumption applications Resisted use, confusion and functional barriers, habit and
lack of acceptance, and social identity value
Rodríguez Sánchez Journal of Travel Research Qualitative Tourism innovation (e.g., App related Perceived risks (e.g., performance risks, lack of business
et al. (2020) to tourism) reputation risks and psychological risks), and lack of
understanding of the relative advantage
Talwar et al. International Journal of Mixed method Online travel agencies Usage barrier (Usage constraints), risk barrier (Privacy and
(2020a) Hospitality Management Security barrier and vulnerability barrier) and Value
barrier (benefits barrier), hygiene consciousness,
visibility, age, and purchase intention
Talwar et al. Australasian Marketing Journal Literature Digital innovations Innovation resistance
(2020b) review
Valor (2020) Environmental Innovation and Qualitative P2P car sharing Anticipated negative emotion, stress, and resistance to
Societal Transitions innovations
Castro et al. (2019) Journal of Product and Brand Quantitative Innovation in general Cognitive active innovation resistance (value, complexity,
Management usage, observability, trialability, and risk barriers) and
emotional active innovation resistance (pleasure, arousal,
and dominance barriers)
Chang & Zhang Sustainability (Switzerland) Quantitative Green product Consumer resistance to innovation, and innovation
(2019) diffusion
Chaouali & Souiden Journal of Retailing and Quantitative Mobile banking Usage barrier, value, risk, tradition and image barriers,
(2019) Consumer Services cognitive age, and resistance
Chen et al. (2019) International Journal of Quantitative Service organization’s brand mobile Usage barrier, image barrier, value barrier, knowledge of
Information Management apps alternatives quality, satisfaction with off-line service,
rejection, opposition, and postponement
Chouk & Mani Journal of Services Marketing Quantitative Internet of things Factors against resistance (individual obliquity,
(2019) technological innovativeness, and self-congruence),
factors for resistance (security risk, complexity,
government surveillance, and general skepticism), and
resistance
Chung & Lee (2019) Journal of the Association for Quantitative Finance-management app, weight- Upward social comparison, holistic thinking, analytical
Consumer Research loss app, and smart body analyzer thinking, adoption, and resistance
Faccio & Fovino Applied Sciences (Switzerland) Conceptual Novel food Resistance to novel food and food neophobia
(2019)
Hew et al. (2019) Technological Forecasting and Quantitative Mobile social commerce Usage barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier,
Social Change image barrier, privacy concern, and usage Intention
Ionela-Andreea Studies in Business and Quantitative Fashion products Passive innovation resistance and status-quo satisfaction
(2019) Economics
Juric & Lindenmeier Lighting Research and Quantitative Smart-lighting products Gender, age, passive innovation resistance, performance
(2019) Technology expectancy, perceived ease of use, social influence, health
concerns, compatibility, information asymmetry, privacy
and data security, cost barrier, active innovation
resistance, and adoption
Kim et al. (2019) Sustainability (Switzerland) Quantitative Biometric e-gate boarding system Perceived risks (e.g., temporal risk and social risk),
perceived benefits, user characteristics, propagation
mechanism, and resistance (postponement and rejection)
Kushwah et al. Food Quality and Preference Quantitative Organic food Image barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, purchase
(2019) intention, ethical consumption intention, and choice
behavior
Kushwah et al. Appetite Literature Organic food consumption Usage, value, risk, tradition, and image barriers
(2019) review
Longoni et al. Journal of Consumer Research Quantitative Medical artificial intelligence Uniqueness neglect, sense of uniqueness, and resistance
(2019)
Ma & Lee (2019) Journal of Educational Qualitative Massive open online courses Usage barrier (internet access, resources and interaction),
Computing Research value barrier (cost, time and lack of incentive), risk
barriers (uncertainty), tradition barrier (tradition and
habit), image barrier (stereotype), individual-level barrier
(self-control and attitude), environmental-level barrier
(promotion and circumstance), and resistance
Mani & Chouk Journal of Marketing Mixed method Smart services in the banking sector Big brother effect, information privacy, perceived
(2019) Management intrusion, unauthorized secondary use, and resistance to
smart services
Nel & Boshoff Journal of Retailing and Quantitative Mobile shopping service Habit, inertia, relative advantage, mobile-service
(2019) Consumer Services experience, and resistance
Oh et al. (2019) Computers in Human Behaviour Quantitative Location-based service application Perceived privacy risk, perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, innovation resistance, and app connectedness
Reinhardt et al. R and D Management Qualitative A set of innovations (e.g., e-book Triggers, overcome resistance, increase innovation
(2019) reader, e-cigarette, cloud storage attraction, reducing barriers, and tilting the system
services and online banking)
Zhowa & Worku Academy of Strategic Quantitative Self-service retail banking Consumer perceptions, innovation characteristics,
(2019) Management Journal innovations postponement, psychological factors, intention, and
resistance
Journal of Business Research Quantitative Autonomous self-driving car
(continued on next page)

13
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Appendix A (continued )
Authors (Year) Source title Research Research context Main related concepts
design

Röth & Spieth Perceived innovativeness, resistance to change and

(2019) perceived risk
Sivathanu (2019) Journal of Science and Quantitative Digital payment systems Social influence, facilitating condition, hedonic
Technology Policy Management motivation, habit, performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, stickiness, usage barrier, risk barrier, value
barrier, traditional barrier, image barrier, resistance, and
actual usage
Stanton (2019) Journal of Food Products Qualitative New food Perceived risks, fear, social reasons, and active innovation
Marketing resistance
Stryja & Satzger Service Industries Journal Quantitative electronic product (e.g., electric Loss aversion, omission of action bias, choice architecture
(2019) vehicles) (nudging), regret avoidance, adoption, and resistance
Yang & Lee (2019) Human Factors and Ergonomics Quantitative Crowdfunding Operational cost, complexity, information disclosure,
In Manufacturing reputational risk, relative advantage, compatibility,
visibility, results demonstrability, and value alignment
Chen et al. (2018) Sustainability (Switzerland) Quantitative Hydrogen-electric motorcycles Usage barrier, risk barrier, price barrier, value barrier,
tradition barrier, image barrier, environmental concern,
and resistance
Jahanmir & Journal of Business Research Quantitative Digital innovations Negative word of mouth, negative attitude toward digital
Cavadas (2018) innovation, lack of a global brand image, negative attitude
toward consumer innovativeness, and late adoption
Joachim et al. Industrial Marketing Mixed method A set of product and service Value barrier, communicability barrier, visibility barrier,
(2018) Management innovations (e.g., AgingBooth) realization barrier, amenability barrier, trialability
barrier, compatibility barrier, co-dependence barrier,
complexity barrier, functional risk barrier, usage barrier,
norm barrier, information barrier, image barrier, social
risk barrier, economic risk barrier, and personal risk
barrier
Katiyar & Badola Journal of Modelling in Qualitative Online banking A set of barriers (e.g., online illiteracy, and online
(2018) Management unawareness)
Kim & Rha (2018) International Journal of Quantitative Mobile learning Relative advantage, complexity, compatibility,
Interactive Mobile Technologies observability, self-efficacy, mobile learning resistance,
status quo bias, and intention to use
Leung et al. (2018) Journal of Marketing Research Quantitative Automated products Automation, identity, and resistance
Lissitsa & Cohen Journal of Media and Religion Quantitative Online shopping and internet use Socio-demographic variables, religiosity, adoption, and
(2018) resistance
Mani & Chouk Journal of Product Innovation Quantitative Internet of things Usage barrier (perceived complexity), value barrier
(2018) Management (perceived price), risk barrier (perceived security and
perceived health risk), image barrier (self-image
incongruence), tradition barrier (need for human
interaction), technological vulnerability barriers
(perceived technological dependence and technology
anxiety), ideological barrier (skepticism), individual
barrier (inertia), and resistance
Matsuo et al. (2018) Journal of Retailing and Quantitative Internet banking Social influence, experience, complexity barrier,
Consumer Services performance risk barrier, existing usage patterns, and
resistance
Reinhardt & Technological Forecasting and Mixed method Disruptive innovations (e.g., mobile Embeddedness, social pressure, tradition, and habit
Gurtner (2018) Social Change business apps) (Passive innovation resistance only represents part of the
paper)
Rieple & Snijders Journal of Business Research Qualitative Farm-related innovations Emotion, adoption, rejection, and resistance
(2018)
Roy et al. (2018) Journal of Retailing and Quantitative Smart technologies in the retail sector Technology readiness, perceived usefulness, perceived
Consumer Services ease of use, superior functionality, perceived adaptiveness,
reputation, adoption, and resistance
Abbas et al. (2017) Cogent Business and Management Quantitative Smartphones Innovation characteristics (perceived risk, complexity,
relative advantage, social influence and price), individual
characteristics (motivation, self-efficacy and negative
emotion), innovativeness, and resistance
Borraz-Mora et al. Revista de Economia Aplicada Quantitative Electronic banking Non-adoption intention, gender, complexity, inertia, value
(2017) barrier, and risk barrier
Chen & Kuo (2017) Technological Forecasting and Quantitative Enterprise social media Functional barriers (usage barrier, physical risks, trust
Social Change risks and value barriers) and psychological barriers (safety
beliefs barriers, mutual benefit belief barriers and Image
barrier)
Gupta & Arora International Journal of Bank Quantitative Mobile banking Reasons for (ubiquitous, convenience and relative
(2017) Marketing advantage), value of openness to change, reasons against
(usage barrier, risk barrier and tradition barrier), attitude,
and adoption
Hazée et al. (2017) Journal of Service Research Qualitative Access-based services (carsharing, Psychological barriers (contamination barrier,
bikesharing, toolsharing and responsibility barrier, compatibility barrier and image
toysharing) barrier), functional barriers (complexity barrier and
reliability barrier), customer barrier-attenuating practices,
and rejection
Heinze et al. (2017) lighting Research and Technology Qualitative Mobile commerce Poor ergonomics, payment concerns, uncertain data
handling and no service advice, and support
(continued on next page)

14
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Appendix A (continued )
Authors (Year) Source title Research Research context Main related concepts
design

Kahma & Matschoss Energy Research and Social
(2017) Science
Kim et al. (2017) Computers and Education
Kim et al. (2017) Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence
Koo et al. (2017) Sustainability (Switzerland)
Labrecque et al. Journal of the Academy of
(2017) Marketing Science
Lin et al. (2017) Industrial Management and Data
Systems
Mani & Chouk Journal of Marketing
(2017) Management
Moorthy et al. Journal of Theoretical and
(2017) Applied Electronic Commerce
Research
Park & Koh (2017) Computers in Human Behavior
Van Tonder (2017) European Business Review
Abualrob & Kang Information Development
(2016)
Goldkind et al. Journal of Technology in Human
(2016) Services
Hengstler et al. Technological Forecasting and
(2016) Social Change
Heidenreich & Journal of Product Innovation
Kraemer (2016) Management
Heidenreich et al. Journal of Business Research
(2016)
Hsieh (2016) Computers in Human Behavior
Ishak & Newton Construction Economics and
(2016) Building
Kim et al. (2016) Telecommunications Policy
Laukkanen (2016) Journal of Business Research
Ramaswami et al. Journal of Indian Business
(2016) Research
Yao & Lee (2016) Indian Journal of Science and
Technology
Yu & Chantatub International Journal of
(2016) Electronic Commerce Studies
Claudy et al. (2015) Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science
Heidenreich & Journal of Product Innovation
Handrich (2015) Management
Heidenreich & Journal of Economic Psychology
Kraemer (2015)
Hong et al. (2015)
Quantitative Smart energy services Non-use, active resistance, disenchantment and
disinterest, lagging adoption, mistrust towards companies,
suspicion of the costs and benefits, and social economic
differences
Quantitative Mobile learning Relative advantage, complexity, inertia, innovativeness,
resistance, and intention to use
Quantitative Internet of things Privacy risk, innovation resistance, technicality, perceived
fee, facilitating condition, perceived usefulness,
enjoyment, variety seeking, perceived value, attitude, and
intention to use
Quantitative Recommender systems in exhibition Relative advantage, switching cost, self-efficacy, technical
support, perceived value, and resistance
Quantitative New fabric refresher Habit slips and resistance
Quantitative Smartphone Consumer psychographics (price consciousness and
nostalgia), smartphone characteristics (perceived ease of
use and perceived usefulness), intention to switch, and
intention to resist
Mixed method Internet of things Perceived uselessness, perceived novelty, perceived price,
intrusiveness, privacy concerns, dependence, self-efficacy,
and resistance
Quantitative Mobile commerce Usage barrier, tradition barrier, risk barrier, value barrier,
image barrier, perceived cost barrier, and adoption
intention
Quantitative Convergence products (e.g., wearable Rapid technological change, expectation for lower price,
devices) expectation for higher quality, rejection, and
postponement
Conceptual Passive innovation resistance, ambiguity, nostalgic
attitude, need for cognitive closure, authoritarianism, anti-
hedonic approach, social dominance orientation, and
ethnocentrism
Quantitative E-commerce External barriers (e.g., government instability), internal
barriers (perceived losses, perceived uncertainty and
perceived complexity), perceived risk, perceived
behavioral control, and resistance
Quantitative Personal and professional technology Passive innovation resistance and organization
environment (e.g., outward focus)
Qualitative Autonomous vehicles Trust and perceived risk (only partially related to
resistance)
Quantitative Electronic product (e.g., mobile Passive innovation resistance, and mental simulation and
phone) benefit comparison strategies.
Quantitative Mobile phone Cognitive passive resistance, situational passive
resistance, adoption, and degree of newness
Quantitative Health cloud Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence, facilitating conditions, sunk costs, regret
avoidance, inertia, perceived value, transaction costs,
uncertainty, adoption, and resistance
Mixed method Online project information systems Innovation characteristics (e.g., complexity, advantage
and visibility) and experience and disposition factor (e.g.,
knowledge, motivation and anxiety), resistance indicators
(time of adoption and usage level), and support network
factors (e.g., peers)
Quantitative In-Vehicle Infotainment systems Technographics, subjective norm, prior similar
experience, perceived usefulness, perceived complexity,
perceived risk, intention, and resistance
Quantitative Internet and mobile banking Demographics (e.g., gender, age, and income), usage
barrier, risk barrier, image barrier, value barrier, tradition
barrier, non-adopters, postponers, and rejecters
Mixed method Resistance to change, resistance to new products,
resistance to improvements in value of competitor
offerings, and determinism
Quantitative Mobile shopping on WeChat friends’ Relative advantage, peer usage, fake goods risk, tradition
circle orientation, motivation, attitude, postponement, rejection,
opposition, and intention
Quantitative Mobile banking Usage barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier,
image barrier, and resistance
Mixed method Micro wind turbines and car sharing Values, reasons for adoption, reasons against adoption,
attitude and intention
Quantitative Passive innovation resistance, resistance to change
(cognitive rigidity, emotional reaction to imposed change,
routine seeking and short-term focus), satisfaction with
the extent of innovations, and existing products
Quantitative Passive innovation resistance, social innovativeness,
hedonist innovativeness, and actualized innovativeness
Mixed method Political website or blog
(continued on next page)

15
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Appendix A (continued )
Authors (Year) Source title Research Research context Main related concepts
design

Journal of Comparative Asian Realization, complexity, habitual conflict, value barrier,

Development negative image, peer influence, and intention to use
Hurmerinta & Journal of Marketing Mixed method Radical innovation (a memorial stone Negative emotion, resistance, hesitance, and favour
Sandberg (2015) Management made of glass)
Liao et al. (2015) Journal of Business Research Quantitative Mobile application service Anti-consumption, dysfunctional customer behavior,
dysfunctional service behavior and functional barriers,
and psychological barriers
Zsifkovits & Central European Journal of Quantitative multi-generation technologies and Agent-based approach, Image barrier, value barrier
Günther (2015) Operations Research corresponding complementary goods (ecological benefit), usage barrier (station density),
functional risk (vehicle range), and economic risk
(maintenance costs)
Cheng et al. (2014) International Journal of Security Quantitative Mobile banking Social influence, perceived security, trust, complexity,
and its Applications privacy, security, perceived risk, and resistance
Im et al. (2014) Journal of Media Business Studies Quantitative Smart TV Watching pattern, previous experience, self-efficacy,
perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to
use, and resistance
Lian & Yen (2014) Computers in Human Behavior Quantitative Online shopping Usage barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier,
image barrier, gender, performance expectation, effort
expectation, social influence, facilitating conditions, and
intention
Nguyen & Qualitative Research in Financial Conceptual Insurance-linked securities Innovation characteristics (e.g., complexity), consumer
Lindenmeier Markets characteristics (e.g., previous experience), propagation
(2014) mechanism (e.g., marketer controlled), and innovation
resistance
Talke & Journal of Product Innovation Conceptual Innovation in general Passive innovation resistance, active innovation
Heidenreich Management resistance, situational passive resistance, cognitive passive
(2014) resistance, adopter-specific factors, situation-specific
factors, and innovation-specific factors
Chemingui & International Journal of Bank Quantitative Mobile financial services Usage barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier,
Lallouna (2013) Marketing adoption, relative advantage, compatibility, facilitating
conditions, perceived enjoyment, system quality, and trust
Chen et al. (2013) Food Quality and Preference Quantitative New food technology Food technology neophobia, risk, and food safety concerns
Heidenreich & International Journal of Quantitative Electronic product category (e.g., 3D Passive innovation resistance, resistance to change, status
Spieth (2013) Innovation Management camera) quo satisfaction, innovativeness, value barrier, complexity
barrier, usage barrier, trialability barrier, observability
barrier, risk barrier, active innovation resistance, and
adoption
Hong & Chang Chinese Journal of Quantitative Political emails Negative impression, perceived interruption, and
(2013) Communication resistance
Lee (2013) Telematics and Informatics Quantitative Mobile e-book Innovativeness, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, perceived risk, resistance, and intention
Lian & Yen (2013) Computers in Human Behavior Quantitative Online shopping Usage barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier,
image barrier, rejection, opponent, and postponement
Mzoughi & International Journal of Bank Quantitative Internet banking Non-adopters, rejecters, postponers, opponents,
M’Sallem (2013) Marketing dispositional resistance to change, perceived usefulness,
security risk, technical risk, and social risk
Patsiotis et al. Journal of Services Marketing Quantitative New computer-based technological Knowledge, lack of trial, risk, delay, rejection, adoption,
(2013) interfaces and non-adoption
Luo et al. (2012) International Journal of Mobile Qualitative Mobile banking Non-users, rejection, postponement, opposition, usage
Communications barrier, value barrier, and risk barrier
Patsiotis et al. International Journal of Bank Quantitative Internet banking Non-adoption, adoption, interactivity, knowledge,
(2012) Marketing perceived risk, emotion, and lack of trial
Korhonen & Kaarela International Journal of Qualitative Industrial service innovations Influence of business environment, innovation
(2011) Innovation Management characteristics, and resistance
Wiedmann et al. Journal of Business Research Quantitative Natural gas vehicles Financial risk, performance risk, time risk, physical risk,
(2011) psychological risk, social risk, resistance, and innovation-
resistance consumers
Antioco & Kleijnen European Journal of Marketing Quantitative New music player and DVD recorder Usage, risk (financial and performance), value, image,
(2010) tradition and norm barriers, and adoption
Cruz et al. (2010) International Journal of Bank Quantitative Mobile banking service Cost, lack of relative advantage, perceived risk, unsuitable
Marketing device, complexity, lack of information, and lack of
observability
Joseph (2010) Communications of the ACM Conceptual IT innovations Active resistance (Rejection and postponement) and
passive resistance (unaware and disinterested)
Laukkanen & International Journal of Bank Quantitative Mobile banking Information, usage barrier, value barrier, risk barrier,
Kiviniemi (2010) Marketing tradition barrier, and image barrier
Sääksjärvi & Morel European Journal of Innovation Mixed method new products Consumer doubt
(2010) Management
Swilley (2010) Journal of Consumer Marketing Quantitative Wallet phone Ease of use, usefulness, perceived risk, security and
privacy, adoption, and rejection.
Kang & Kim (2009) Journal of Computer-Mediated Quantitative Multihop communications Expected network quality concerns, expected privacy
Communication concerns, expected lack of cohesion, expected resource
sacrifice, resistance, and participation intention
Kleijnen et al. Journal of Economic Psychology Qualitative
(2009)
(continued on next page)

16
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Appendix A (continued )
Authors (Year) Source title Research Research context Main related concepts
design

Physical risk, social risk, economic risk, functional risk,

traditions and norms, perceived image, usage patterns,
postponement, rejection, and opposition
Laukkanen et al. International Journal of Quantitative Internet banking Functional resistance, psychological resistance,
(2009) Information Management dissatisfaction, and communication strategies
Laukkanen et al. International Journal of Bank Quantitative Internet banking Rejecters, postponers, opponents, usage barrier, value
(2008) Marketing barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier, image barrier, and
non-adopters
Laukkanen et al. International Journal of Mobile Quantitative Mobile banking Non-users, resistance segments, usage barrier, value
(2008) Communications barrier, risk barrier, image barrier, and tradition barrier
Garcia et al. (2007) MIT Sloan Management Review Qualitative Screw cap wine closure Resistance to innovation and marketing strategies
(case study)
Goldenberg & Oreg Technological Forecasting and Quantitative Innovations (e.g., music players) Leapfrogging, laggards, and resisters
(2007) Social Change
Heiskanen et al. European Journal of Innovation Mixed method Radical product innovations (e.g., Organizational complexity and systemic effects,
(2007) Management Electronic grocery shopping and instrumentalism, autonomy, and potential side effects
personalized diets)
Kuisma et al. (2007) International Journal of Qualitative Internet banking Usage barrier (e.g., lack of internet connection), value
Information Management barrier (e.g., inefficiency), tradition barrier (e.g. habit),
image barrier (e.g., negative attitudes and beliefs
regarding internet channel), and risk barrier (economic
risk)
Laukkanen et al. Journal of Consumer Marketing Quantitative Mobile banking Usage barrier, value barrier, tradition barrier, image
(2007) barrier, and risk barrier
Gourville (2006) Harvard Business Review Conceptual Resistance, adoption, and strategies
Hirunyawipada & Journal of Consumer Marketing Quantitative Electronic products (e.g., DVD burner Perceived risk (innovation resistance perspective),
Paswan (2006) and portable MP3) innovativeness, adoption, and acquire product related
novel information
Yadav & Journal of Retailing Conceptual Electronic marketplace Inertia, resistance, interactivity, product migration, and
Varadarajan value outcome
(2005)
Moldovan & Technological Forecasting and Quantitative Resistance leaders, negative word-of-mouth, and opinion
Goldenberg Social Change leaders
(2004)
Susskind et al. Journal of Travel Research Quantitative Internet use Internet apprehensiveness
(2003)
Leek et al. (2001) Journal of International Food and Quantitative Polyunsaturated fatty acid fed fish Age, adoption, and resistance
Agribusiness Marketing
Nault et al. (1998) Wirtschaftsinformatik Quantitative Electronic communication Innovation support, price, and overcome adoption
innovations resistance
Szmigin & Foxall Technovation Qualitative Debit and credit cards Rejection, postponement, and opposition
(1998)
Veryzer Jr (1998) Journal of Product Innovation Qualitative Discontinuous new products Lack of familiarity, user-product interaction problems,
Management irrationality, uncertainty and risk, and accordance
Fain & Roberts Journal of Interactive Marketing Qualitative Smart card Resistance and curriculum marketing approach
(1997)
Dunphy & Herbig Journal of High Technology Conceptual Innovation in general Rejection, resistance, adoption, and overcome barriers
(1995) Management Research
Ellen et al. (1991) Journal of the Academy of Quantitative Technological innovations (e.g., self-efficacy, performance satisfaction, and resistance
Marketing Science proposed telephone registration
system)
Tansuhaj et al. International Marketing Review Quantitative A set of innovations in categories such Perceived risk and cultural variables (fatalism, religious
(1991) as entertainment and fashion commitment and traditionalism)
products
Ram (1989) The Journal of Product Quantitative A set of innovations covering product Cognitive resistance, risk resistance, innovation
Innovation Management categories of foods, beverages, modification, and communication strategies
personal care, drugs and durables.
Ram & Sheth (1989) Journal of Consumer Marketing Conceptual Usage barrier, value barrier, tradition barrier, image
barrier, and risk barrier

to overcome resistance. Usage, value, and risk barriers are the factors
most often discussed in the literature. Companies need to consider these
barriers when developing and designing innovation. The study also ar­
gues that over-emphasizing the most common barriers may neglect
resistance factors that are specific to each innovation context. Innova­
tion managers therefore need to also understand their contexts and
determine which barriers are relevant to a particular innovation.
As research on innovation enters a new phase of maturity, this sys­
tematic review offers a comprehensive analysis of the consumer inno­
vation resistance literature and highlights avenues for future study. The
results highlighted the importance and the growing potential of inno­
vation resistance research.
This study contributes to the innovation diffusion literature by
achieving a common goal of most innovation resistance
research—overcoming the pro-innovation or pro-change bias that has
characterized this area (Rogers, 2003; Talke and Heidenreich, 2014).
Innovation research across a wide scope of industries, ranging from
retail, financial services, agriculture, transportation, tourism,
manufacturing to healthcare, education, media, and environmental
science, may benefit from this review. The findings offer alternative
perspectives to understand the market and overcome the pro-innovation
bias. Researchers may benefit by connecting their work with the existing
literature. For example, scholars can locate their work in antecedents,
manifestations, consequences of resistance, and strategies to diminish

17
D. Huang et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594

Appendix B knowledge.
Most-cited references in the eight main document co-citation clusters ranked by Current innovations are often resource or technology driven by
citation counts. companies seeking to alter their value creation paths for improved
Cluster No. Betweenness centrality Author (year) positive outcomes. Such innovations, often brought by technology in­
#0 68 0.09 Ram (1987)
telligence, could be disruptive to both companies and consumers. Future
47 0.05 Rogers (2003) investigations from the consumer side of factors affecting the adoption
43 0.16 Sheth (1981) of, or resistance to innovation may be helpful to generate new knowl­
39 0.07 Kuisma et al. (2007) edge especially in relation to innovation development and ethics.
36 0.10 Ram (1989)
17 0.06 Moore and Benbasat (1991)
14 0.03 Laukkanen and Kiviniemi (2010) CRediT authorship contribution statement
#1 15 0.04 Gourville (2006)
13 0.30 Bagozzi and Lee (1999) Dan Huang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
11 0.08 Patsiotis et al. (2013)
analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualiza­
7 0 Hoeffler (2003)
#2 59 0.06 Kleijnen et al. (2009) tion. Xin Jin: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - review & editing,
35 0.07 Laukkanen et al. (2007) Supervision. Alexandra Coghlan: Conceptualization, Writing - review
31 0.07 Venkatesh et al. (2003) & editing, Supervision.
26 0.08 Laukkanen et al. (2008)
22 0.04 Antioco and Kleijnen (2010)
21 0.09 Ellen et al. (1991) Acknowledgements
21 0.01 Davis et al. (1989)
19 0.11 Laukkanen et al. (2009) The authors would like to thank Griffith Institute for Tourism (GIFT)
16 0.05 Venkatesh and Davis (2000)
for supporting the development of the paper. The authors also would
16 0.02 Oreg (2003)
13 0.02 Garcia et al. (2007) like to thank Prof. Zhiyiong Li, Xinyi Liu, Qiurong Chen, and Jiahui
#3 95 0.08 Ram and Sheth (1989) Huang for their encouragement and help in data collection and cleaning.
31 0.02 Talke and Heidenreich (2014) The authors are grateful for the insightful comments provided by the
26 0.03 Claudy et al. (2015) anonymous peer reviewers.
24 0.07 Heidenreich and Spieth (2013)
23 0 Heidenreich and Handrich (2015)
15 0.01 Heidenreich & Kraemer (2016) Appendix
15 0 Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
14 0 Rogers (1995)
13 0.05 Castellion and Markham (2013)
#4 40 0.18 Fornell and Larcker (1981)
32 0.09 Laukkanen (2016) References
19 0.06 Ajzen (1991)
14 0.08 Lian and Yen (2013) Abbas, M., Nawaz, M.S., Ahmad, J., Ashraf, M., 2017. The effect of innovation and
#5 15 0.05 Podsakoff et al. (2003) consumer related factors on consumer resistance to innovation. Cogent Bus. Manag.
11 0.03 Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) 4 (1).
11 0.02 Mani and Chouk (2017) Abualrob, A.A., Kang, J., 2016. The barriers that hinder the adoption of e-commerce by
#6 9 0 Molesworth and Suortti (2002) small businesses: unique hindrance in Palestine. Inf. Dev. 32 (5), 1528–1544.
6 0.17 Kleijnen, Ruyter, and Wetzels (2007) Ahn, B., Ahn, H., 2020. Factors affecting intention to adopt cloud-based ERP from a
#7 42 0.08 Szmigin and Foxall (1998) comprehensive approach. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (16).
Antioco, M., Kleijnen, M., 2010. Consumer adoption of technological innovations: effects
33 0.06 Davis (1989)
of psychological and functional barriers in a lack of content versus a presence of
content situation. Eur. J. Mark. 44 (11), 1700–1724.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50
resistance, or a combination of these. Research might also follow an (2), 179–211.
active or a passive innovation resistance paradigm. The main contri­ Arif, I., Aslam, W., Hwang, Y., 2020. Barriers in adoption of internet banking: a structural
equation modeling - Neural network approach. Technol. Soc. 61.
bution of this study lies in expansion of the understanding of the
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., Purvis, R., 2011. Technostress: technological antecedents and
research opportunities in a field that has significant theoretical and implications. MIS Q. 35 (4), 831–858.
practical relevance by providing evidence-based research avenues that Bagozzi, R.P., Lee, K.H., 1999. Consumer resistance to, and acceptance of, innovations.
future research may explore. Adv. Consum. Res. 26, 218–225.
Beaudry, A., Pinsonneault, A., 2005. Understanding user responses to information
The study has limitations. As the data were collected from a single technology: a coping model of user adaptation. MIS Q. 29 (3), 493–524.
database (Scopus), some studies focusing on innovation resistance may Boeuf, B., 2019. The impact of mortality anxiety on attitude toward product innovation.
have been missed. Further, by using “consumer” as a keyword to search J. Bus. Res. 104, 44–60.
Borraz-Mora, J., Bordonaba-Juste, V., Polo-Redondo, Y., 2017. Functional barriers to the
focal articles, this study may have neglected studies that explore con­ adoption of electronic banking: the moderating effect of gender. Revista de
sumer innovation resistance from an organizational perspective. Con­ Economia Aplicada 25 (75), 87–107.
sumers are usually considered from an individual perspective in the Breckler, S.J., 1984. Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct
components of attitude. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47 (6), 1191–1205.
literature, but organizations as consumers can also resist innovation. Brosnan, M.J., 1998. Technophobia: The Psychological Impact of Information
The lack of relevant studies focusing on organizations as consumers Technology. Routledge, London.
indicates that an investigation of organization innovation resistance Castellion, G., Markham, S.K., 2013. Perspective: new product failure rates: influence of
argumentum ad populum and self-interest. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 30 (5),
could be fruitful. Although this study may not encompass all relevant
976–979.
studies, oversight by experienced researchers, and complementary Castro, C.A.B., Zambaldi, F., Ponchio, M.C, 2019. Cognitive and emotional resistance to
reference and citation checking reduce the possibility that the review innovations: concept and measurement. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 29 (4), 441–455.
Chamaret, C., Steyer, V., Mayer, J.C., 2020. Hands off my meter!” when municipalities
omitted articles representative of the innovation resistance literature.
resist smart meters: linking arguments and degrees of resistance. Energy Policy 144.
This study also provides a set of research avenues that are discussed Chang, Y., Zhang, T., 2019. The effects of product consistency and consumer resistance to
in the previous section. Apart from that, future literature review studies innovation on green product diffusion in China. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (9).
may delve further to understand a research question. A review on the Chaouali, W., Souiden, N., 2019. The role of cognitive age in explaining mobile banking
resistance among elderly people. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 50, 342–350.
definition of innovation resistance, a synthesis of different resistance Chemingui, H., Lallouna, H.B., 2013. Resistance, motivations, trust and intention to use
factors discussed in the literature, and a meta-analysis to gauge the mobile financial services. Int. J. Bank Market. 31 (7), 574–592.
explanatory power of various resistance factors may help to advance Chen, C., 2006. CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient
patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57 (3), 359–377.

18
D. Huang et al.
Chen, C., 2014. The CiteSpace Manual. Retrieved from Blog.Sciencenet.Cn 〉
Filename=Citespacemanual.
Chen, C., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., Hou, J., 2010. The structure and dynamics of cocitation
clusters: a multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61
(7), 1386–1409.
Chen, H.S., Tsai, B.K., Hsieh, C.M., 2018. The effects of perceived barriers on innovation
resistance of hydrogen-electric motorcycles. Sustainability (Switzerland) (6), 10.
Chen, P.-.T., Kuo, S.-.C., 2017. Innovation resistance and strategic implications of
enterprise social media websites in Taiwan through knowledge sharing perspective.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 118, 55–69.
Chen, Q., Anders, S., An, H., 2013. Measuring consumer resistance to a new food
technology: a choice experiment in meat packaging. Food Qual. Prefer 28 (2),
419–428.
Chen, Q., Lu, Y., Gong, Y.Y., Tang, Q., 2019. Why do users resist service organization’s
brand mobile apps? The force of barriers versus cross-channel synergy. Int. J. Inf.
Manage. 47, 274–282.
Cheng, S., Lee, S.J., Lee, K.R., 2014. User resistance of mobile banking in China: focus on
perceived risk. Int. J. Secur. Appl. 8 (2), 167–172.
Chiu, K.C., Lai, C.S., Chu, H.H., 2020. Apply importance performance analysis to explore
innovation resistance of home robot. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Robot. Res. 9 (5), 716–720.
Chouk, I., Mani, Z., 2019. Factors for and against resistance to smart services: role of
consumer lifestyle and ecosystem related variables. J. Serv. Market. 33 (4), 449–462.
Chung, J.J., Lee, L., 2019. To buy or to resist: when upward social comparison
discourages new product adoption. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 4 (3), 280–292.
Chung, K.C., Liang, S.W.J., 2020. Understanding factors affecting innovation resistance
of mobile payments in taiwan: an integrative perspective. Mathematics 8 (10), 1–18.
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.
Cruz, P., Neto, L.B.F., Muñoz-Gallego, P., Laukkanen, T, 2010. Mobile banking rollout in
emerging markets: evidence from Brazil. Int. J. Bank Market. 28 (5), 342–371.
Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., Bressgott, T., 2020. How artificial intelligence will
change the future of marketing. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 48 (1), 24–42.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Q. 13 (3), 319–340.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35 (8), 982–1003.
Dhir, A., Koshta, N., Goyal, R.K., Sakashita, M., Almotairi, M., 2021. Behavioral
reasoning theory (BRT) perspectives on E-waste recycling and management. J. Clean.
Prod. 280.
Ellen, P.S., Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., 1991. Resistance to technological innovations: an
examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 19 (4), 297–307.
Faccio, E., Fovino, L.G.N., 2019. Food Neophobia or Distrust of Novelties? Exploring
consumers’ attitudes toward GMOs, insects and cultured meat. Appl. Sci.
(Switzerland) 9 (20).
Fain, D., Roberts, M.L., 1997. Technology vs. Consumer behavior: the battle for the
financial services customer. J. Interact. Market. 11 (1), 44–54.
Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., Pappas, G., 2008. Comparison of PubMed,
Scopus, web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 22
(2), 338–342.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., 2019. Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive
communication across political divides. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 13 (12).
Festinger, L., 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Garcia, R., Bardhi, F., Friedrich, C., 2007. Overcoming consumer resistance to
innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 48 (4), 82–88.
Ghazali, E.M., Mutum, D.S., Pua, M.H.J., & Ramayah, T. (2020). Status-quo satisfaction
and smartwatch adoption: a multi-group analysis. Industrial Management and Data
Systems.
Goldenberg, J., Oreg, S., 2007. Laggards in disguise: resistance to adopt and the
leapfrogging effect. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (8), 1272–1281.
Goldkind, L., Wolf, L., Jones, J., 2016. Late Adapters? How social workers acquire
knowledge and skills about technology tools. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 34 (4), 338–358.
Gourville, J.T., 2006. Eager sellers: stony buyers: understanding the psychology of new-
product adoption. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84 (6), 98–106.
Gupta, A., Arora, N., 2017. Consumer adoption of m-banking: a behavioral reasoning
theory perspective. Int. J. Bank Market. 35 (4), 733–747.
Hazée, S., Delcourt, C., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., 2017. Burdens of access: understanding
customer barriers and barrier-attenuating practices in access-based services. J. Serv.
Res. 20 (4), 441–456.
Hazée, S., Zwienenberg, T.J., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Faseur, T., Vandenberghe, A.,
Keutgens, O., 2020. Why customers and peer service providers do not participate in
collaborative consumption. J. Serv. Manag. 31 (3), 397–419.
Heidenreich, S., Handrich, M., 2015. What about passive innovation Resistance?
Investigating adoption-related behavior from a resistance perspective. J. Prod.
Innovat. Manag. 32 (6), 878–903.
Heidenreich, S., Kraemer, T., 2015. Passive innovation resistance: the curse of
innovation? Investigating consequences for innovative consumer behavior. J. Econ.
Psychol. 51, 134–151.
19
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
Heidenreich, S., Kraemer, T., 2016. Innovations - Doomed to fail? Investigating strategies
to overcome passive innovation resistance. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 33 (3),
277–297.
Heidenreich, S., Kraemer, T., Handrich, M., 2016. Satisfied and unwilling: exploring
cognitive and situational resistance to innovations. J. Bus. Res. 69 (7), 2440–2447.
Heidenreich, S., Spieth, P., 2013. Why innovations fail - The case of passive and active
innovation resistance. Int. J. Innovat. Manag. 17 (5).
Heinze, J., Thomann, M., Fischer, P., 2017. Ladders to m-commerce resistance: a
qualitative means-end approach. Comput. Human. Behav. 73, 362–374.
Heiskanen, E., Hyvönen, K., Niva, M., Pantzar, M., Timonen, P., Varjonen, J., 2007. User
involvement in radical innovation: are consumers conservative? Eur. J. Innovat.
Manag. 10 (4), 489–509.
Hengstler, M., Enkel, E., Duelli, S., 2016. Applied artificial intelligence and trust-The case
of autonomous vehicles and medical assistance devices. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 105, 105–120.
Herzberg, F., 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. World Publishing Company, Cleveland,
OH.
Hew, J.J., Leong, L.Y., Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B., Lee, V.H, 2019. The age of mobile social
commerce: an Artificial Neural Network analysis on its resistances. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 144, 311–324.
Hirunyawipada, T., Paswan, A.K., 2006. Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk:
implications for high technology product adoption. J. Consumer Market. 23 (4),
182–198.
Hoeffler, S., 2003. Measuring preferences for really new products. J. Market. Res. 40 (4),
406–420.
Hong, A., Nam, C., Kim, S., 2020. What will be the possible barriers to consumers’
adoption of smart home services? Telecomm. Policy 44 (2).
Hong, S.C., 2020. Digital bible and innovation resistance. J. Media Relig. 19 (1), 24–34.
Hong, Y.H., Chang, R., 2013. To click or not to click? A study of the innovation resistance
of political emails. Chinese J. Commun. 6 (3), 305–324.
Hong, Y.H., Lin, T.T.C., Ang, P.H, 2015. Innovation resistance of political websites and
blogs among internet users in Singapore. J. Comparat. Asian Dev. 14 (1), 110–136.
Huang, D., Coghlan, A., Jin, X., 2020. Understanding the drivers of Airbnb
discontinuance. Annal. Tourism Res. 80.
Hurmerinta, L., Sandberg, B., 2015. Sadness bright as glass: the acceptance of
emotionally sensitive radical innovation. J. Market. Manag. 31 (9), 918–939.
Hsieh, P.J., 2016. An empirical investigation of patients’ acceptance and resistance
toward the health cloud: the dual factor perspective. Comput. Human. Behav. 63,
959–969.
Im, H., Jung, J., Kim, Y., Shin, D.H., 2014. Factors affecting resistance and intention to
use the smart TV. J. Media Bus. Stud. 11 (3), 23–42.
Ishak, S.S.M., Newton, S, 2016. An innovation resistance factor model. Construct. Econ.
Build. 16 (3), 87–103.
Jackson, D.A., 1993. Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of
heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74 (8), 2204–2214.
Jahanmir, S.F., Cavadas, J., 2018. Factors affecting late adoption of digital innovations.
J. Bus. Res. 88, 337–343.
Jain, R., Tandon, A., Khandelwal, R., 2020. Taming Consumer Resistance for Taboo
Products: the Case of PeeBuddy. South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases.
Joachim, V., Spieth, P., Heidenreich, S., 2018. Active innovation resistance: an empirical
study on functional and psychological barriers to innovation adoption in different
contexts. Ind. Market. Manag. 71, 95–107.
Joseph, R.C., 2010. Individual resistance to IT innovations. Commun. ACM 53 (4),
144–146.
Ju, N., Lee, K.H., 2020. Consumer resistance to innovation: smart clothing. Fashion
Textiles 7 (1).
Juric, J., Lindenmeier, J., 2019. An empirical analysis of consumer resistance to smart-
lighting products. Light. Res. Technol. 51 (4), 489–512.
Kahma, N., Matschoss, K., 2017. The rejection of innovations? Rethinking technology
diffusion and the non-use of smart energy services in Finland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
34, 27–36.
Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Thaler, R.H., 1991. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss
aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 5 (1), 193–206.
Kang, Y., Kim, S., 2009. Understanding user resistance to participation in multihop
communications. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 14 (2), 328–351.
Katiyar, R., Badola, S., 2018. Modelling the barriers to online banking in the Indian
scenario: an ISM approach. J. Modell. Manag. 13 (3), 550–569.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Singh, N., Sahu, G., Almotairi, M., 2020. An innovation resistance
theory perspective on mobile payment solutions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 55.
Kim, C., Costello, F.J., Lee, K.C., 2019. Integrating qualitative comparative analysis and
support vector machine methods to reduce passengers’ resistance to biometric e-
gates for sustainable airport operations. Sustainability (Switzerland) (19), 11.
Kim, D., Bae, J.K., 2020 a. The effects of protection motivation and perceived innovation
characteristics on innovation resistance and innovation acceptance in internet
primary bank services. Global Bus. Finance Rev. 25 (1), 1–12.
Kim, D., Bae, J.K., 2020 b. Understanding internet-only bank service adoption: an
integration of the unified technology theory of acceptance and innovation resistance
model. Global Bus. Finance Rev. 25 (3), 49–59.
Kim, H.J., Lee, J.M., Rha, J.Y., 2017a. Understanding the role of user resistance on
mobile learning usage among university students. Comput. Educ. 113, 108–118.
Kim, H.J., Rha, J.Y., 2018. Predicting the drivers of the intention to use mobile learning
in South Korea. Int. J. Interact. Mobile Technol. 12 (1), 116–132.
Kim, J., Kim, S., Nam, C., 2016. User resistance to acceptance of In-Vehicle Infotainment
(IVI) systems. Telecomm. Policy 40 (9), 919–930.
D. Huang et al.
Kim, J., Park, E., 2020. Understanding social resistance to determine the future of
Internet of Things (IoT) services. Behav. Inf. Technol.
Kim, J., Seo, J., Zo, H., Lee, H., 2020. Why digital goods have not replaced traditional
goods: the case of e-books. J. Enterprise Inf. Manag.
Kim, Y., Park, Y., Choi, J., 2017b. A study on the adoption of IoT smart home service:
using Value-based Adoption Model. Total Q. Manag. Bus. Excellence 28 (9–10),
1149–1165.
Kleijnen, M., Lee, N., Wetzels, M., 2009. An exploration of consumer resistance to
innovation and its antecedents. J. Econ. Psychol. 30 (3), 344–357.
Kleijnen, M., De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., 2007. An assessment of value creation in mobile
service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. J. Retail. 83 (1),
33–46.
Koch, J., Kraemer, T., Heidenreich, S., 2020. Exploring passive innovation resistance - An
empirical examination of predictors and consequences at the cognitive and
situational level. Int. J. Innovat. Manag.
Koo, C., Chung, N., Ham, J., 2017. Assessing the user resistance to recommender systems
in exhibition. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9 (11).
Korhonen, H.M.E., Kaarela, I, 2011. Corporate customers’ resistance to industrial service
innovations. Int. J. Innovat. Manag. 15 (3), 479–503.
Krippendorff, K., 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 3 ed. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kuisma, T., Laukkanen, T., Hiltunen, M., 2007. Mapping the reasons for resistance to
Internet banking: a means-end approach. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 27 (2), 75–85.
Kushwah, S., Dhir, A., Sagar, M., 2019a. Understanding consumer resistance to the
consumption of organic food. A study of ethical consumption, purchasing, and
choice behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 77, 1–14.
Kushwah, S., Dhir, A., Sagar, M., Gupta, B., 2019b. Determinants of organic food
consumption. A systematic literature review on motives and barriers. Appetite 143.
Labrecque, J.S., Wood, W., Neal, D.T., Harrington, N., 2017. Habit slips: when consumers
unintentionally resist new products. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 45 (1), 119–133.
Langley, A., 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (4),
691–710.
Laukkanen, P., Sinkkonen, S., Laukkanen, T., 2008a. Consumer resistance to internet
banking: postponers, opponents and rejectors. Int. J. Bank Market. 26 (6), 440–455.
Laukkanen, T., 2016. Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar
service innovations: the case of the Internet and mobile banking. J. Bus. Res. 69 (7),
2432–2439.
Laukkanen, T., Kiviniemi, V., 2010. The role of information in mobile banking resistance.
Int. J. Bank Market. 28 (5), 372–388.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Kivijärvi, M., Laukkanen, P., 2007. Innovation resistance
among mature consumers. J. Consum. Market. 24 (7), 419–427.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Laukkanen, P., 2009. Communication strategies to
overcome functional and psychological resistance to Internet banking. Int. J. Inf.
Manage. 29 (2), 111–118.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Laukkanen, P., Kivijärvi, M., 2008b. Segmenting bank
customers by resistance to mobile banking. Int. J. Mobile Commun. 6 (3), 309–320.
Lazarus, R.S., Folkman, S., 1984. Stress, appraisal, and Coping. Springer publishing
company, New York.
Lazarus, R.S., 1991. Cognition and motivation in emotion. Am. Psychol. 46 (4), 352–367.
Lee, H., 2020. Home IoT resistance: extended privacy and vulnerability perspective.
Telematic. Inf. 49.
Lee, S., 2013. An integrated adoption model for e-books in a mobile environment:
evidence from South Korea. Telematic. Inf. 30 (2), 165–176.
Leek, S., Szmigin, I., Carrigan, M., 2001. Older Consumers and Food Innovation. J. Int.
Food Agribusiness Market. 12 (1), 71–89.
Leong, L.Y., Hew, T.S., Ooi, K.B., Wei, J., 2020. Predicting mobile wallet resistance: a
two-staged structural equation modeling-artificial neural network approach. Int. J.
Inf. Manage. 51.
Lerner, J.S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., Kassam, K.S., 2015. Emotion and decision making.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 799–823.
Leung, E., Paolacci, G., Puntoni, S., 2018. Man Versus Machine: resisting Automation in
Identity-Based Consumer Behavior. J. Market. Res. 55 (6), 818–831.
Leximancer, 2018. Leximancer User Guide. Retrieved from. https://doc.leximancer.
com/doc/LeximancerManual.pdf.
Lian, J.W., Yen, D.C., 2013. To buy or not to buy experience goods online: perspective of
innovation adoption barriers. Comput. Human. Behav. 29 (3), 665–672.
Lian, J.W., Yen, D.C., 2014. Online shopping drivers and barriers for older adults: age
and gender differences. Comput. Human. Behav. 37, 133–143.
Liao, S., Chou, C.Y., Lin, T.H., 2015. Adverse behavioral and relational consequences of
service innovation failure. J. Bus. Res. 68 (4), 834–839.
Lin, C.Y., Chao, Y.C., Tang, T.W., 2017. Why not be "smarter"? Examining the factors that
influence the behavioral intentions of non-smartphone users. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
117 (1), 32–49.
Lissitsa, S., Cohen, O.R., 2018. The decade of online shopping in the jewish Ultra-
Orthodox community. J. Media Religion 17 (2), 74–89.
Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., Morewedge, C.K., 2019. Resistance to medical artificial
intelligence. J. Consum. Res. 46 (4), 629–650.
Luo, X., Lee, C.P., Mattila, M., Liu, L., 2012. An exploratory study of mobile banking
services resistance. Int. J. Mobile Commun. 10 (4), 366–385.
Ma, L., Lee, C.S., 2019. Understanding the Barriers to the Use of MOOCs in a Developing
Country: an Innovation Resistance Perspective. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 57 (3),
571–590.
Mainardes, E.W., de Souza, I.M., Correia, R.D., 2020. Antecedents and consequents of
consumers not adopting e-commerce. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 55.
Mani, Z., Chouk, I., 2017. Drivers of consumers’ resistance to smart products. J. Market.
Manag. 33 (1–2), 76–97.
20
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
Mani, Z., Chouk, I., 2018. Consumer Resistance to Innovation in Services: challenges and
Barriers in the Internet of Things Era. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 35 (5), 780–807.
Mani, Z., Chouk, I., 2019. Impact of privacy concerns on resistance to smart services:
does the ‘Big Brother effect’ matter? J. Market. Manag. 35 (15–16), 1460–1479.
Matsuo, M., Minami, C., Matsuyama, T., 2018. Social influence on innovation resistance
in internet banking services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 45, 42–51.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ (Online) 339
(7716), 332–336.
Moldovan, S., Goldenberg, J., 2004. Cellular automata modeling of resistance to
innovations: effects and solutions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 71 (5), 425–442.
Molesworth, M., Suortti, J.P., 2002. Buying cars online: the adoption of the web for high-
involvement, high-cost purchases. J. Consum. Behav. 2 (2), 155–168.
Moore, G.A., 2014. Crossing the Chasm, 3rd ed. HarperCollins, New York.
Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I., 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2 (3),
192–222.
Moorthy, K., Suet Ling, C., Weng Fatt, Y., Mun Yee, C., Ket Yin, E.C., Sin Yee, K., Kok
Wei, L., 2017. Barriers of mobile commerce adoption intention: perceptions of
generation X in Malaysia. J. Theoretic. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 12 (2), 37–53.
Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F., Kageki, N., 2012. The uncanny valley (Translated by. IEEE
Robot. Automat. Mag. 19 (2), 98–100.
Mzoughi, N., M’Sallem, W., 2013. Predictors of internet banking adoption: profiling
Tunisian postponers, opponents and rejectors. Int. J. Bank Market. 31 (5), 388–408.
Nabih, M.I., Bloem, J.G., Poiesz, T.B.C., 1997. Conceptual issues in the study of
innovation adoption behaviour. Adv. Consum. Res. 24, 190–196.
Naranjo-Madrigal, H., van Putten, I., Norman-López, A., 2015. Understanding socio-
ecological drivers of spatial allocation choice in a multi-species artisanal fishery: a
Bayesian network modeling approach. Mar. Policy 62, 102–115.
Nault, B.R., Dexter, A.S., Wolfe, R., 1998. Electronic communication innovations:
overcoming adoption resistance. Wirtschaftsinformatik 40 (2), 114–121.
Nel, J., Boshoff, C., 2019. Online customers’ habit-inertia nexus as a conditional effect of
mobile-service experience: a moderated-mediation and moderated serial-mediation
investigation of mobile-service use resistance. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 282–292.
Nel, J., Boshoff, C., 2020. Status quo bias and shoppers’ mobile website purchasing
resistance. Eur. J. Mark. 54 (6), 1433–1466.
Nguyen, T., Lindenmeier, J., 2014. Catastrophe risks, cat bonds and innovation
resistance. Qual. Res. Financ. Markets 6 (1), 75–92.
Oh, Y.J., Park, H.S., Min, Y., 2019. Understanding location-based service application
connectedness: model development and cross-validation. Comput. Human. Behav. 94,
82–91.
Oreg, S., 2003. Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure.
J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (4), 680–693.
Panter-Brick, C., Clarke, S.E., Lomas, H., Pinder, M., Lindsay, S.W., 2006. Culturally
compelling strategies for behaviour change: a social ecology model and case study in
malaria prevention. Soc. Sci. Med. 62 (11), 2810–2825.
Park, K., Koh, J., 2017. Exploring the relationship between perceived pace of technology
change and adoption resistance to convergence products. Comput. Human. Behav. 69,
142–150.
Patsiotis, A.G., Hughes, T., Webber, D.J., 2012. Adopters and non-adopters of internet
banking: a segmentation study. Int. J. Bank Market. 30 (1), 20–42.
Patsiotis, A.G., Hughes, T., Webber, D.J., 2013. An examination of consumers’ resistance
to computer-based technologies. J. Serv. Market. 27 (4), 294–311.
Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C., Grunert, a.K.G., 2008. Consumer Behaviour and Marketing
Strategy, 8 ed. McGraw-Hill, London.
Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., 2020. Adoption of internet of things (IoT) in the agriculture
industry deploying the BRT framework. Benchmarking 27 (4), 1341–1368.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Pitari, D.F., Gayatri, G., Furinto, A., Assauri, S., 2020. Integration of intention and
resistance in adopting near field communication-based mobile payment innovation.
Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 9 (4), 857–866.
Ramaswami, S.N., Raju, S., Page, D.C., 2016. Conceptualizing and measuring resistance
to change in brand relationships. J. Indian Bus. Res. 8 (3), 180–204.
Ram, S., 1987. A model of innovation resistance. Adv. Consum. Res. 14 (1), 208–212.
Ram, S., 1989. Successful innovation using strategies to reduce consumer resistance. An
empirical test. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 6 (1), 20–34.
Ram, S., Sheth, J.N., 1989. Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem
and its solutions. J. Consum. Market. 6 (2), 5–14.
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., 2016. A Bibliometric Review of Open
Innovation: setting a Research Agenda. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 33 (6), 750–772.
Reinhardt, R., Gurtner, S., 2018. The overlooked role of embeddedness in disruptive
innovation theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 132, 268–283.
Reinhardt, R., Hietschold, N., Gurtner, S., 2019. Overcoming consumer resistance to
innovations – an analysis of adoption triggers. R&D Manag. 49 (2), 139–154.
Rieple, A., Snijders, S., 2018. The role of emotions in the choice to adopt, or resist,
innovations by Irish dairy farmers. J. Bus. Res. 85, 23–31.
Rodríguez Sánchez, I., Williams, A.M., García Andreu, H., 2020. Customer resistance to
tourism innovations: entrepreneurs’ understanding and management strategies.
J. Travel Res. 59 (3), 450–464.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4 ed. Free Press, New York.
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Röth, T., Spieth, P., 2019. The influence of resistance to change on evaluating an
innovation project’s innovativeness and risk: a sensemaking perspective. J. Bus. Res.
101, 83–92.
D. Huang et al.
Roux, D., 2007. Consumer resistance: proposal for an integrative framework. Recherche
et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) 22 (4), 59–79.
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Quazi, A., Quaddus, M., 2018. Predictors of customer acceptance
of and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
42, 147–160.
Sääksjärvi, M., Morel, K.P.N., 2010. The development of a scale to measure consumer
doubt toward new products. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 13 (3), 272–293.
Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R., 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk
Uncertain. 1 (1), 7–59.
Sheth, J.N., 1981. Psychology of innovation resistance: the less developed concept (LDC)
in diffusion research. Res. Market. 4, 273–282.
Sivathanu, B., 2019. Adoption of digital payment systems in the era of demonetization in
India: an empirical study. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 10 (1), 143–171.
Small, H., 1980. Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms.
J. Document. 36 (3), 183–196.
Small, H.G., 1978. Cited documents as concept symbols. Soc. Stud. Sci. 8 (3), 327–340.
Smallman, C., Moore, K., 2010. Process studies of tourists’ decision-making. Annal.
Tourism Res. 37 (2), 397–422.
Sorum, N., 2020. Ethical consumption applications as failed market innovations:
exploring consumer (non) acceptance of ‘quasi’ market devices. J. Cult. Econ. 13 (1),
91–113.
Stanton, J.V., 2019. Changing consumer preferences in emerging markets: food market
challenges in central Mexico. J. Food Product. Market. 25 (4), 378–403.
Stryja, C., Satzger, G., 2019. Digital nudging to overcome cognitive resistance in
innovation adoption decisions. Serv. Ind. J. 39 (15–16), 1123–1139.
Susskind, A.M., Bonn, M.A., Dev, C.S., 2003. To look or book: an examination of
consumers’ apprehensiveness toward internet use. J. Travel Res. 41 (3), 256–264.
Swilley, E., 2010. Technology rejection: the case of the wallet phone. J. Consum. Market.
27 (4), 304–312.
Szmigin, I., Foxall, G., 1998. Three forms of innovation resistance: the case of retail
payment methods. Technovation 18 (6–7), 459–468.
Talke, K., Heidenreich, S., 2014. How to overcome pro-change bias: incorporating
passive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. J. Prod.
Innovat. Manag. 31 (5), 894–907.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Mäntymäki, M., 2020a. Barriers toward purchasing from
online travel agencies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag 89.
Talwar, S., Talwar, M., Kaur, P., Dhir, A., 2020b. Consumers’ resistance to digital
innovations: a systematic review and framework development. Austral. Market. J. 28
(4), 286–299.
Tan, C.W., Benbasat, I., Cenfetelli, R.T., 2016. An exploratory study of the formation and
impact of electronic service failures. MIS Q. 40 (1), 1–29.
Tandon, A., Jabeen, F., Talwar, S., Sakashita, M., Dhir, A., 2021. Facilitators and
inhibitors of organic food buying behavior. Food Qual. Prefer. 88.
Tansuhaj, P., Gentry, J.W., John, J., Lee Manzer, L., Cho, B.J., 1991. A crossnational
examination of innovation resistance. Int. Market. Rev. 8 (3).
Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth,
and Happiness. Penguin Group.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science 211 (4481), 453–458.
21
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120594
Valor, C., 2020. Anticipated Emotions and Resistance to Innovations: The Case of P2P
Car Sharing, 37. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, pp. 50–65.
Van Tonder, E., 2017. Passive innovation resistance – a conservative consumer
perspective. Eur. Bus. Rev. 29 (6), 642–663.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 (3), 425–478.
Veryzer Jr, R.W., 1998. Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new
products. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 15 (2), 136–150.
Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N., Pankalla, L., Kassubek, M., Seegebarth, B., 2011. Adoption
barriers and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive sector. J. Bus. Res.
64 (11), 1201–1206.
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R.P., Grønhaug, K., 2019. The impact of corporate social responsibility
on consumer brand advocacy: the role of moral emotions, attitudes, and individual
differences. J. Bus. Res. 95, 514–530.
Yadav, M.S., Varadarajan, P.R., 2005. Understanding product migration to the electronic
marketplace: a conceptual framework. J. Retail. 81 (2 SPEC. ISS.), 125–140.
Yang, Q., Lee, Y.C., 2019. An investigation of enablers and inhibitors of crowdfunding
adoption: empirical evidence from startups in China. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 29
(1), 5–21.
Yao, C., Lee, Y.C., 2016. An empirical study on consumers’ resistance to mobile shopping
service: the case of shopping on WeChat Friends’ Circle. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 9
(46).
Yu, C.S., Chantatub, W., 2016. Consumers’ resistance to using mobile banking: evidence
from Thailand and Taiwan. Int. J. Electron. Commerce Stud. 7 (1), 21–38.
Zhowa, T., Worku, Z., 2019. Mobile devices are friends-in-hand: exploring youths’
resistance behaviour. Acad. Strategic Manag. J. 18 (5).
Zsifkovits, M., Günther, M., 2015. Simulating resistances in innovation diffusion over
multiple generations: an agent-based approach for fuel-cell vehicles. Central Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 23 (2), 501–522.
Dan Huang is a PhD candidate in the business school, Griffith University. Her research
interests involve innovation resistance and consumer behavior. Her work has been pub­
lished in journals such as Annals of Tourism Research and Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology.
Dr Xin (Cathy) Jin is a senior lecturer in the business school, Griffith University. Her two
main areas of research interest are event tourism and destination marketing. Her work has
been published in journals such as Tourism Management, Journal of Travel Research, and
International Journal of Hospitality Management.
Dr Alexandra Coghlan is an Associate Professor in the business school, Griffith University.
Her primary research interests focus on the process of adding positive social and envi­
ronmental outcomes to tourism experiences, mainly in volunteer tourism, environmental
education, transformative experiences and nature-based tourism more broadly. Her work
has been published in journals such as Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management,
and Journal of Sustainable Tourism.