The Influence of Communication Source and Mode On Consumer Adoption of Technological Innovations

The Influence of Communication Source and Mode on Consumer Adoption of
Technological Innovations
Author(s): EUN-JU LEE, JINKOOK LEE and DAVID W. SCHUMANN
Source: The Journal of Consumer Affairs , Summer 2002, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Summer 2002),
pp. 1-27
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23860157
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Consumer Affairs
This content downloaded from

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SUMMER 2002 VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1
EUN-JU LEE, JINKOOK LEE, AND DAVID W. SCHUMANN
The Influence of Communication Source and Mode on

Consumer Adoption of Technological Innovations
Communication is the critical process of diffusion of technological
innovations, yet there is little research in the consumer behavior liter
ature investigating how communication affects consumers' decision to
adopt technological innovations. This paper examines the effects of
communication source and modality on consumers' adoption of tech
nological innovations using the 1999 University of Michigan's Survey
of Consumers data. Specifically, a typology of communication sources
and modality is presented, and the respective and interrelated influ
ences of source and mode on consumers' adoption of electronic bank
ing are examined. The results demonstrate that communication fac
tors can serve as significant predictors of consumer adoption of
technological innovations and that consumer preferences for commu
nication source and modality vary for different segments of adopters.
In addition, we find information gaps between consumer segments
high and low in socioeconomic status. Finally, implications for the dif
fusion of technological innovations and future research directions are
discussed.
Technology is "a form of human activity that applies the principles of

science and mechanics to the solution of problems," to the enhancement
of performance, and the creation of competitive advantage (Bush 1981,
p. 1). In today's world, technological advancements seem to occur con
stantly as companies introduce innovative products and services into the
marketplace at an ever-increasing speed. During this era of accelerating
technological advancement, product life cycles for many high tech inno
vations are rapidly decreasing. Facing the challenge of what may seem to
be a bombardment of technological products and services, coupled with
the rapid pace of change occurring in the technology industry, many con
sumers today seem to be overwhelmed with technological innovation
(Cohen 1999; Hirschman 1987; Miles 2000). Without diffusion agents
Eun-Ju Lee is an assistant professor of Marketing at the California State University, Los Angeles;
Jinkook Lee is Associate Professor at the University of Georgia; and David W. Schumann is Associ
ate Dean and Professor of Marketing at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
This article is based on a part of the first author's dissertation, which received the 2001 ACCI Dis
sertation Award. The funding for this project was provided for the second author from the Federal
Reserve Board and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The authors thank Jeanne Hogarth, Jane
Kolodinsky, and Jeffrey Shue for their input on the instrument development.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2002

0022-0078/0002-1 1.50/1
Copyright 2002 by The American Council on Consumer Interests

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
vigorously communicating useful information, these consumers are n

always able to recognize the full advantages of these technological inn
vations (Campbell 1999; Nuttall 1998). As Allen (1971) rightly put
technology is also "consumer information" (p. 2), the flow of which m
be planned and managed through appropriate communication processe
in order to facilitate the adoption by potential customers.
Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory (1995) provides some co
ceptual guidance for understanding the adoption of products and servic
and how technological innovation is proliferated across the consuming
public (Gatignon and Robertson 1985). To date, the bulk of the diffus
studies in the consumer behavior literature have tilted heavily towar
either individual predisposition (Hirschman 1980; Midgley and Dowlin
1978) or innovation characteristics (Rogers 1995), as precursors of inn
vation adoption. It is important to note that communication is also a cr
ical process factor for the diffusion of innovation (Mahajan, Muller,
Bass 1990). Yet, to date, consumer researchers have largely neglected
empirical study of communication in the diffusion process. Only a ha
ful of studies have considered the notion that various types of commu
cation can influence consumers' adoption of innovation (Mahajan
Muller, and Bass 1990; Mahajan, Muller, and Srivastava 1990).
This paper considers the diffusion of technological innovation as it
travels through multiple communication sources employing various c
munication modes. In this study, "sources" including mass media (i
one-way communication from corporations or government to consume
and word of mouth (i.e., communications with family and friends), a
coupled with one or both conversation and/or print "modes." While p
vious studies have not differentiated the effects of written and conversa
tional communication, this study explicitly recognizes and investigates
the differential impacts of written and conversational modalities. An
empirical study is presented examining the perceived usefulness of these
varied strategic communication combinations in the diffusion and adop
tion of technology using the 1999 University of Michigan's Survey of
Consumers data.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The communication literature has identified the various paths t

information travels as it crosses different population segments with
social system. The two-step flow model of communication, for exam
posits that information flows from mass media (e.g., radio and print

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
opinion leaders (innovators), and that the less active m

ety (imitators) are subsequently influenced by comm
innovative consumers (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955; K
leaders have been found to be highly exposed to for
media including marketer- and independent third p
mation. On the other hand, interpersonal communic
mediate the flow of information from mass media t
ments of the population (imitators).
Critics of the two-step flow model have asserted t
have a direct impact on both innovators and imitato
theory of mass media effects) or that the communi
involve more than two (multiple) steps under certain
telart, Mattelart, and Taponier 1998). In spite of conti
two-step flow model of communication has prov
foundation for the Bass model of diffusion in marke
(1969) assumes two means of communication that af
sions: mass media and word of mouth. Innovators are
the mass media communication, or external influence
are typically influenced only by word-of-mouth com
jan, Muller, and Bass 1990, p. 2).
Communication Sources and Modality
Communication Sources. The diffusion of innovati

gests that information about technological innovation
a variety of communication sources and modes to m
system (Rogers 1995). Extant literature on consumer
helps to identify the types of consumer communicatio
be related to the adoption of technological innovatio
ety of external information sources have been introdu
behavior literature, the three major societal sources o
been identified as marketer-provided (e.g., corporati
pendent third-party (e.g., government, independent
personal (e.g., family, friends) (Lee and Hogarth 2
and Staelin 1972; Mazis et al. 1981).
While information about technological innovations
variety of institutional sources, consumers use the pr
selectively. The preferred information source may dif
consumers (Beales et al. 1981; Midgley and Dowli
1971), and individuals may have different propensitie

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
keter-provided information, independent third-party information, a

information from personal sources (Bearden et al. 1989; Furse et al. 198
Several marketing researchers (Bayus, Carroll, and Rao 1985; Rogers
1995; Westbrook and Fornell 1979) have suggested that potential
adopters tend to use information from various sources, such as markete
and independent third parties beyond close interpersonal networ
because they are often highly involved with the product category (Bloc
Sherrell, and Ridgway 1986). Innovators tend to be heavier users of p
fessional communication sources, such as sellers, governments, and oth
third parties, than imitators and non-adopters (Bayus, Carroll, and R
1985; Midgley and Dowling 1993; Price, Feick, and Higie 1987). Inn
vators are also heavy users of interpersonal communication (Bayus, C
roll, and Rao 1985; Gatignon and Robertson 1985). Imitators tend to r
heavily on interpersonal communication (Gatignon and Robertson 198
Based upon these inclinations, the following hypotheses are offered:
HI: Receiving information from an industry or corporate source wi

be positively associated with the probability of being an innovator
H2: Receiving information from government/consumer agencies wi

be positively associated with the probability of being an innovator
H3; Receiving information from family and/or friends will be posi

tively associated with the probability of being an imitator.
Communication Modality. Another important aspect of communicati

is the mode of communication. Two communication modes—written
information and conversation—are examined in this paper. Written com
munication modes can be broken down into print media, letters and
memos, and e-mails, while conversational modes can be classified as tele
phone conversation and face-to-face communications (Maitz 2000; Rice
1993). This taxonomy of consumer communication is summarized in
Table 1. Previous studies considering communications mode within an
organization context (Maitz 2000; Moenaert and Souder 1996) provide
strong evidence that written communication (e.g., print media advertise
ment) and conversational communication (e.g., discussion with salespeo
ple) have very different impacts on consumers' perceptions about the use
fulness of the information being communicated. However, to date, no
studies have been found in the literature that examine how communica
tion modes actually influence consumers' final decisions to adopt techno
logical innovation. Therefore, it is important to examine how different

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Table 1
Taxonomy of Sources and Communication Modality

Marketer-Provided
Marketer-Provided Independent
Independent
Third-Party Interpersonal
Third-Party Interperso
Written
Written
Print
Print media
mediaPublications
Publications
by by Consumer reports N/A
Consumer reports N/A
marketers
marketers (brochures
(brochures Government
Government publicationspublications
orprint
or print advertisement)
advertisement) Consumer
Consumer reports reports
E-mail
E-mail Promotional messages
Promotional Government
messages publications
Government E-mail
publications correspon
E-mail correspon
by
by marketers dence withdence
marketers family
with family
and
andfriends
friends
Letters
Letters& & Promotional
Promotional letters by letters
Letters by Letters
by government/ by government
Written correspon
Memos marketers consumer consumer
Memos marketers agenciesagencies
dence with family
dence andand
with family
friends
friends
Conversational
Phone
Phone Telephone discussions
Telephone Telephone
discussions discussions
Telephone Telephone
discussions discussion
Telephone discussion
withemployees
with employees of thewith
of the with employees
employees at at with
withfamily and
family and
business
business government friends
government oror friends
consumer
consumeragencies agencies
Face-to-face
Face-to-face Face-to-face
Face-to-face discussions
discussions Face-to-face
Face-to-facediscussions
discussions Face-to-face
Face-to-facediscussion
discussion
withemployees
with employees of the
of the with
with employees
employees at gov atwith
gov- withand
family family
friends and friends
business ernment ernment
business or consumer
or consumer
agencies
modes of communication influence consumers' perceived usefulness of

information about technological innovations, and consequently, their
decisions to adopt.
The difference between written and conversational communication is
that written communication is one-way communication from the source
to the receiver. Thus, the success of written communication is based on
the receiver's comprehension of the provided information. On the other
hand, conversation is an interpersonal interaction that allows two speak
ers to exchange sequentially linked messages, which consequently devel
ops mutual agreement on the issue (Thomas 1992). It is suggested in the
consumer behavior literature that conversations present information more
vividly than written communication (Herr, Kardes, and Kim 1991), which
requires rather elaborate processing. Thus, conversational information
tends to be more persuasive than written information, especially when
consumers are not highly motivated to learn (Celsi and Olson, 1988; Petty
and Cacioppo 1982; Thomas 1992).
In the communication literature, media richness theory (Daft and
Lengel 1984, 1986; Westmyer, DiCioccio, and Rubin 1998) proposes dif
ferent modes of communication vary in their capacity to convey "rich"
information. Specifically, richness of information refers to "the ability to
deal with multiple cues, to facilitate rapid feedback, and establish a per

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
sonal focus" (Lengel and Daft 1988, p. 226). Rich information is charac
terized by various simultaneous cues, rapid feedback, and personal
tion, and is believed to reduce information uncertainty and ambiguity
(Carlson and Davis 1998; Daft and Lengel 1984, 1986). When position
along the media richness hierarchy, conversational communication
richer than written communication since conversation involves many
visual cues and advantages associated with the physical presence of bo
communicating parties (Lengel and Daft 1988; Rice 1993).
Furthermore, media richness theory presents communication strategi
based on a contingency model (Keller 1994). According to the contingen
model, the selection of communication mode should be based on the
assessment of the richness of communicated information. And, the fit
between the message and the communication mode influences the per
ceived utility of information (Maitz 2000; Moenaert and Souder 1996), per
formance (Keller 1994; Lengel and Daft 1988), and effectiveness (West
myer, DiCiccio, and Rubin 1998). Thus, it is suggested that marketers
should use a rich medium when communicating new and difficult messages
and adopt a lean medium for simple, routine communication. Since learn
ing about technological innovation involves exposures to new and some
times difficult information, using the conversational mode rather than the
written mode may increase the perceived usefulness of the information.
A study by Wilkie and Dickson (1985) revealed that 41% of the pur
chasers of electrical appliances rated conversations with salespeople as
more useful than either print ads or information presented in Consumer
Reports. A salesperson can customize information about a new prod
uct/service to help facilitate customer understanding. If a consumer has a
better understanding of the technology, the probability of his/her adoption
also increases (Davis 1989; Rogers 1995). Similarly, Wilton and Myers
(1986) suggest that if consumers perceive that information as useful, then
they are more likely to accept the message. Therefore, the mode of com
munication will influence consumers' perception of the usefulness of
information when learning about innovations. Specifically,
H4: Conversational information will be perceived as more useful than

written information when learning about innovations.
Relationships Among Communication Sources and Modality. Several

researchers assert that the interaction among different communication
sources influences the extent to which an innovation is diffused across indi
viduals (Gatignon and Robertson 1985; Mahajan, Muller, and Bass 1990;
Rogers 1995). Similarly, studies in consumer information search have sug

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
gested that information search activities might be inter

and Mueller 1955; Lee and Hogarth 2000, 2001; Thorelli
ple, if a consumer uses a particular source of information,
more or less likely to be exposed to other types of infor
Many studies have investigated consumer use of indi
tion sources; however, little is known about how in
more than one channel of communication in their dec
and Hogarth 2000, 2001). Acknowledging the gaps i
researchers call for more study of the interrelationsh
communication sources (Beales et al. 1981; Mazis et al. 1
1987). In addition, less is known about how communica
modes interact in influencing consumer adoption. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the potential fo
ent effects of channels and modes of communication o
tion of technology.
Benefits and Costs of Electronic Banking
Electronic banking technologies refer to all the fi

involving electronic media such as Automated Teller M
debit cards, direct deposit, direct payment, smart car
banking (Lee and Lee 2000). The category of "elect
includes various technological innovations that are curr
diffusion stages. For example, automatic teller mach
been in the market over 30 years, whereas computer b
duced relatively recently. Temporal diversity within th
tronic banking technologies provides an opportunity to
of communication on consumer adoption of technologi
different stages.
Recent technological changes in the financial market
nature of consumer interactions with the providers of
reducing the importance of physical location and face-to
(Lee 2001; White 1998). Benefits of electronic bank
include convenience and cost savings. Using these el
technologies, consumers can conduct fast and convenie
action activities and obtain their account information without direct face
to-face interaction with a customer representative (Lee and Lee 2000;
Mester 2000; White 1998). For financial institutions, transaction cost of
electronic banking is only a fraction of the expense for regular teller
banking (Sheth and Sisodia 1999; Talmor 1995). Because check process

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
ing costs approximately $181 billion per year (Consumers' Rese

Magazine 1999), low cost is also an attractive incentive for governm
to embrace electronic banking. In 1999, Congress finalized the Elect
Funds Transfer Act, which mandated electronic disbursement of s
security benefits (Department of Treasury 1999).
As alternative electronic banking options become available, an in
ing number of consumers are expected to use them. However, both
financial industry and government seem to face consumer resistan
electronic banking (Fain and Roberts, 1997; Lee 2001 ; Lee and Lee
Mester 2000). Paper checks still dominate the U.S. payment sy
(Bank for International Settlements 1995), and the majority of cons
prefer to conduct their banking business in person as opposed to u
electronic banking technologies (Kennickell and Kwast 1997).
Learning an unfamiliar practice of banking using technolog
opposed to face-to-face interactions may incur some cognitively effo
costs (Dickerson and Gentry 1983; Hirschman 1980). Furthermore,
those consumers who perceive electronic banking as complex and u
able, using electronic banking may likely present substantial securit
financial costs concerns. Finally, the loss of human contact may like
weigh the increased benefits of electronic banking if consumers str
prefer personal interaction to electronic formats (Dabholkar 1996).
In fact, it has been reported that many consumers are not well inform
about the benefits of electronic banking innovations (Barczac, Scho
and Pilling 1997) and perceive security risks regarding financial tr
tions via electronic media (O'Connell 1999). Therefore, creating pos
awareness among potential adopters (Mahajan, Muller, and Kerin 19
by communicating the increased benefits and reduced costs of elect
banking becomes critical in the successful diffusion of electronic ba
innovations (Lockett 1999). Generally, the print media is the most w
used by marketers to promote consumer adoption of electronic ba
innovations. Alternatively, information about electronic banking c
delivered through conversations with salespeople, employees at gov
ment/consumer agencies, and family and friends.
METHODOLOGY
Data
The data set employed for this study was the 1999 Survey of Con
sumers commissioned by the University of Michigan Institute of Social
Research Survey Research Center. The Surveys of Consumers were ini

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
tiated in the late 1940s by the Survey Research Ce

of Michigan. The purpose of these surveys is to m
sumer attitudes and expectations, to explain wh
and to evaluate how these changes relate to consu
borrow, or make discretionary purchases. In Sept
1999, the Federal Reserve Board commissioned ad
the Surveys of Consumers, including specific que
adoption of electronic banking innovations. The a
contributed to the development of specific que
tronic banking innovations and consumer com
Using a telephone survey, the researchers queried
1,000 adults.
Measures
Respondents were asked several questions in order to identify con

sumers' communication patterns and their adoption of electronic banking
innovations. Demographic variables comprise another set of explanatory
variables and were used as control variables in the analysis.
Channels of Communication. Three different channels of communica
tion regarding electronic banking were included: financial institutions,
government/consumer agencies, and family and friends. The consumers
who had received information regarding electronic banking from each of
the three channels were categorized into receivers on a binary scale ( 1 =
received, 0 = not received).
Modes of Communication. Two major communication modes—written
and conversational—were recorded for information from financial insti
tutions and information from government/consumer agencies, respec
tively. Thus, five different combinations of channels and modes of com
munication were investigated in this study: (1) written information from
financial institutions, (2) conversational information from financial insti
tutions, (3) written information from government/consumer agencies, (4)
conversational information from government/consumer agencies, and
finally, (5) information from family and friends.
Perceived Usefulness. To measure their perception of each of the above
five types of communication, respondents were asked the following ques
tion: "How useful was this information from in making decisions
to use or not to use electronic banking services?" Each response was
recorded on 3-point Likért scale ranging from "not at all useful (= 1),"
"somewhat useful (= 2)," to "very useful (= 3)."

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
10 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Adoption of Electronic Banking. Consu

banking was measured for ATM, computer
direct payment, respectively. Adoption was
for the respondents who had used the techn
Demographics. Age was measured accor
ordinal categories: 18-24 years, 25-34 ye
55-64 years, and over 65. Midpoints were
The respondent's education level was recor
High School (= 1), High School (= 2), So
Degree (= 4), and Graduate Degree (= 5).
created: $10,000 or less (= 1), $10,000- $
(= 3), $20,000-$24,999 (= 4), $25,000-$29
(= 6), $35,000-$39,999 (= 7), $40,000-$44
(=9), $50,000- $59,999 (= 10), $60,000-$7
(= 12), $100,000-$ 124,999 (= 13), and $1
categories of race were included in the sur
Hispanic. However, only the binary variab
multivariate model (1 = black, 0 = other
race categories were less than five percent
respondent's marital status was recorded i
categories: married, separated or divorced
A binary variable of "married" was create
analysis (1 = married, 0 = not married).
Analysis
In this study, adopters of electronic banking innovations are grouped

based on Bass and his colleagues' conceptualization of innovators, imita
tors, and non-adopters (1969, 1990). In categorizing adopters of electronic
banking innovations, we considered how recently each innovation was first
introduced to general consumers. Among the four electronic banking inno
vations (ATM, computer banking, direct deposit, and direct payment),
computer banking is the most recent innovation. Thus, we define those
who have adopted computer banking as Innovators. ATMs and direct
deposit/payment services have been available to consumers for quite
sometime now. Those who have adopted ATMs, direct deposit or direct
payment services, but not computer banking, are considered Imitators,
since they are not innovative enough to adopt the recent innovation but
have adopted innovations after some introductory time in the market.
Finally, those who have not adopted any of the four electronic banking

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
SUMMER 2002 VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1 11
innovations were deemed Non-Adopters. Th

egories were then used as dependent variab
minal logit analysis to investigate the effects o
demographic differences on consumer adop
Bivariate analyses, including x2 test
(ANOVA), were used to examine cluster dif
patterns as well as in demographics. Specif
the relationship between communication m
was examined using a contingency table and
differences in channel preferences among
tion stages were investigated by pair-w
Squares) Means option in the SAS GLM (G
dure. In doing so, Bonferroni adjustments
1 error.
The SAS CATMOD (Categorical Data Modeling) procedure was then

used for a multinominal logit analysis. In a multinominal logit analysis, the
likelihood ratio indicates the goodness of fit of the tested model. The chan
nel and the mode of communication and their interactions, as well as indi
vidual demographic variables, comprised the explanatory variables to pre
dict consumer adoption/usage of electronic banking innovations.
Specifically, the significance and magnitude of relationships provided bases
for testing hypotheses 1 through 3. In addition, interdependencies between
the channel and the mode of communication were tested by the interaction
terms among the independent variables in the multinominal logit analysis.
RESULTS
Descriptive Analyses
The adoption patterns of four electronic banking innovations a

demographic characteristics are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Profiles
each adopter category are presented next.
The "Non-Adopter" category was composed of 224 individu
(22.4%) who did not use electronic banking innovation in any form.
hoc pair-wise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment showed that
average Non-Adopter respondent (age 47) was older than the aver
Innovator. In terms of social attainment, the "Non-Adopter" category
a significantly lower income level than Imitators and Innovators. No
Adopters also had a significantly lower education level than Imitators
Innovators. They had the highest proportion of non-white population.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Table 2
Percentage of Respondents Who Used a Particular Electronic Banking Technology

During the Past 12 Months
Electronic
Electronic Banking
Banking Usage
Usage Non-Adopters
Non-Adopters Imitators
Imitators Innovators All
ATM 0% 68.12% 88.29% 55.1%
Computer Banking 0% 48.70% 100.00% 11.1%

Deposit
Direct Deposit 0% 73.23% 75.68% 57.1%
Direct Bill Payment 0% 35.04% 51.35% 29.0%
N 224 665 111 1000
Percent 22.4% 66.5% 11.10% 100.0%
The "Imitators" category was composed of 665 individuals (66.5%)

who use ATMs, direct deposit, and/or direct payment but not computer
banking. The average Imitator respondent was 46 years of age, signifi
cantly older than the average Innovator. The average income level of Imi
tators was higher than Non-Adopters', but lower than Innovators'. Simi
larly, the education level was higher than the educational level of
Non-Adopters but lower than that of Innovators.
Finally, the "Innovators" were composed of users of computer banking
(N = 111, 11.1%). Every respondent in this cluster used computer bank
ing. About 90% used ATMs, and 76% used direct deposit. Just over half
the Innovators used direct payment (51.35%). This Innovator cluster was
composed of the young (average age = 40), higher income (midpoint
$55,000) individuals with the highest level of education among the three
consumer clusters. Specifically, an average Innovator consumer was
younger than an average Imitator or Non-Adopter. Innovators had higher
income and education levels compared to the other categories. About 68%
of the Innovators were married.
Communication Pattern
Table 4 represents the percentage of respondents who received a par

ticular type of information. Overall, written information from financial
institutions was more available to respondents (42.1%) than conversa
tional information (15.5%). The next most available communication was
interpersonal communication with family and friends (25.2%). Informa
tion from government/consumer agencies reached about 12% of the
respondents through written communication and about 6% of respondents
through conversational communication.
Table 5 represents the perceived usefulness of the different types of
communication among respondents who received information. Overall,

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Table 3
Demographic Characteristics by Adopter Category

Demographics Non-Adopters
Non-Adopters Imitators
Imitators Innovators
Innovators TOTAL (N)
(N
(N ==224)
224)(%)
(%)
(N(N
= 665)
= 665)
(%) (N
(%)= (N
111=) 111)
(%) (%) (N)
Age
18-24 11.61 8.42 8.11 91
25-34 12.95 18.20 30.63 184
35-44 22.77 23.46 30.63 241
45-54 18.30 18.20 17.12 181
55-64 17.86 13.08 9.91 138
over 65 16.52 18.65 3.60 165
100 100 100 1,000
Mean (Median)
F = 9.07 (p = 0.0001) 46.80b 46.30b 39.77" 45.63 (39.5)
Income
$10,000 or less (= 1) 9.38 2.86 0 40
$10,000-$ 14,999 (= 2) 9.38 4.96 0.90 55
$15,000-$ 19,999 (= 3) 8.93 5.41 0.90 57
$20,000-$24,999 (= 4) 9.38 6.17 3.60 66
$25,000-$29,999
$25,000-$29,999 (= (= 5)
5) 3.57 5.86 3.60 51
$30,000-$34,999 (= (= 6)
6) 5.80 4.96 2.70 49
$35,000-$39,999 (= 7) 6.25 5.11 6.31 55
$40,000-$44,999 (= 8) 4.46 5.86 8.11 58
$45,000-$49,999 (= 9) 19.64 13.23 9.01 142
$50,000-$59,999 (= 10) 6.70 12.48 8.11 107
$60,000-$74,999 (= 11) 7.14 10.38 14.41 ' 101
$75,000-$99,999 (= 12) 3.57 11.43 15.32 101
$100,000-$ 124,999 (= 13) 2.68 5.56 11.71 56
$125,000 or more (= 14) 3.13 5.71 15.32 62
100 100 100 1,000
Mean(Median)
Mean (Median)
FF ==41.21
41.21(p<(p<
0.0001)
0.0001) 6.68"
6.68" 8.43b 10.33° 8.25 (9)
Education
High School
Less than High School (=
(= 11)) 19.20 6.02 2.70 86
High School (= 2) 37.50 29.92 16.22 301
Some College (= 3) 20.09 24.66 26.13 238

Bachelor's Degree (= 4) 19.20 24.66 31.53 242
Graduate Degree (= 5) 4.02 14.74 23.42 133
100 100 100 1,000
Mean (Median)
F = 36.79 (p< 0.0001) 2.51"
2.5 1" 3.12" 3.57° 3.03 (3.00)
Ethnicity
White 68.75 80.60 81.98 781
Black 14.73 9.77 6.31 105
Other 16.52 9.62 11.71 114
100 100 100 1,000
X2 = 16.26 (0.0027)
Household Composition
Married 45.54 59.40 68.47 573
Male Single 22.77 14.59 17.12 167

Female Single 31.70 26.02 14.41 260
100 100 100 1,000
X2 = 23.59 (< 0.0001)
Notes to Table 3 on next pagt

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Notes to Table 3
Note: The superscripts a, b, and c present the results of pair-wise tests using Bonferroni adjustment
with an alpha level of 0.05. Values with the same subscript are not significantly different. For
instance, for age, Non-Adopters (a) and Imitators (a) are not significantly different from each other.
However, the average age of Innovators (a) is significantly different from those of Imitators (b) and
Non-Adopters (b).
conversational communication from government/consumer agencies was

perceived as most useful (mean 2.21), closely followed by conversational
information from financial institutions (2.19) and interpersonal commu
nication with family and friends (2.02). On average, written communica
tion from both financial institutions (1.82) and government/consumer
agencies (1.81) was perceived somewhere between "not at all useful" and
"somewhat useful." A discussion of the communication pattern of each
adopter group is presented next.
First, the Non-Adopters reported getting the least information of all
five types of communication categories. Only 13% of the Non-Adopters
received written information from financial institutions, and only 5% ever
discussed the information with employees of financial institutions. While
5% reported having received written information from government/con
sumer agencies, only 3% ever had personal contacts with employees at
government/consumer agencies. They also appeared to be less likely to
discuss electronic banking with their family and friends than the Imitators
and the Innovators.
The Imitators more actively sought information from financial

institutions compared to the Non-Adopters, but less actively so than
the Innovators. Specifically, about 47% of the Imitators received writ
ten information from financial institutions, 15% had discussed elec
tronic banking with employees of financial institutions, 14% had
received written information from government/consumer agencies,
and 7% had discussed the information with employees at govern
ment/consumer agencies. Finally, 28% had received information from
their family and friends.
The Innovators were found to be active information seekers who
employed all five types of communication extensively. About 68% of the
Innovators had received written information about electronic banking
from financial institutions, while 36% had discussed electronic banking
with employees of financial institutions. Twelve percent had received
information from government/consumer agencies, and 9% had discussed
the information with employees at government/consumer agencies.
Slightly less than 40% had received information from family and friends.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Table 4
Percentage of Respondents Who Reported Receiving a Part
Non-Adopters
rson-AOoptersImitators
îmuaiors Innovators
innovatorsAll
au
Communication
Communication (N
(N =
= 224)
224) (N
(N =
= 665)
665) (N
(N == 111)
111) (N
(N== 1000)
Financial
Financial Institutions—Written
Institutions—Written 13.39%a
13.39%a 47.37%"
47.37%" 68.47%c
68.47%c 42.1%
42.1%
X2=
X2 =114.9636 (< .0001)
114.9636 (< .0001)
Financial
Financial Institutions—Conversational
Institutions—Conversational 5.36%" 5.36%a
15.49%b
15.49%"36.04%c
36.04%c 15.5%
15.5%
X2
X2= =53.3358
53.3358
(< .0001)
(< .0001)
Government/
Government/ Consumer
Consumer
Agencies—
Agencies—
Written 5.36%b 13.68%a
Written 5.36%b !1.71%ab
13.68%" 11.71 %ab11.6%
11.6%
X2
X2= 11.3318
= 11.3318
(0.0035) (0.0035)
Government/
Government/Consumer Agencies—
Consumer Agencies—
Conversational
Conversational 2.68%a
2.68%a 6.92%a
6.92%a 9.01%a
9.01%a 6.2%
6.2%
X2
X2= 6.8707
= (0.0322)
6.8707 (0.0322)
Family/Friends
Family/Friends 9.82%a
9.82%a 28.12%b38.74%c
28.12%b 38.74%c 25.2%
25.2%
X2
X2= 41.9072
= 41.9072
(< .0001)
(< .0001)
Note: The superscripts a, b, and c present the results of pair-wise tests using Bonferroni adjustment
with an alpha level of 0.05.
The Innovators perceived most types of communication useful compared

to the consumers in the other two categories.
Perceived usefulness of the five different types of communication by
cluster is presented in Table 5. The results show that there were signifi
cant differences in the perceived usefulness of written (F = 7.50, p =
0.0006) and conversational information (F = 4.37, p = 0.0143) from finan
cial institutions. Specifically, post-hoc comparisons revealed that the
Innovators perceived written information from financial institutions to be
more useful than did the Imitators and the Non- Adopters. However, the
Non-Adopters were not significantly different from the Imitators in their
perception of the usefulness of conversational information provided by
financial institutions.
No significant difference across adopter categories was found in the
perceptions of written (F = 1.18, p = 0.3097) and conversational commu
nication (F = 2.62, p = 0.0812) initiated by government/consumer agen
cies and information from family and friends (F = 2.99, p = 0.0523).
Interestingly, although the Innovators and the Non-Adopters differed in
their perceptions about the usefulness of written information from finan
cial institutions, no differences were found between the Innovators and
the Non-Adopters concerning the value of conversational communica
tions from all three sources.
The mode of communication was found to significantly influence con
sumer perception of usefulness. When \2 tests were conducted on written

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Table 5
Perceived Usefulness of Information Among Consumers Who Received Information

Communication
Communication Non-Adopters Imitators
Non-Adopters Imitators Innovators
Innovators All
All
Financial Institutions—Written
Received (N) 30 315 76 421
Not at all Useful 40.00 38.41 18.42 34.92
Somewhat Useful 46.67 47.30 53.95 48.46
Very Useful 13.33 14.29 27.63 16.63
16.63
X2* = 14.5538 (0.0007)
F = 7.50 (0.0006)
Mean 100 100
100 100 100
1.73" 1.65a 2.09b 1.82
Financial Institutions—Conversational
Received (N) 12 103 40 155
Not at all Useful 16.67 21.36 7.50 13.42
Somewhat Useful 33.33 49.51 40.00 45.81
Very Useful 7.74 29.13 52.50 36.77
X2* =8.3668 (0.0152)
F = 4.37 (0.0143)
Mean 100 100 100
100 100
2.33ab 2.08a 2.45" 2.19
Government/Consumer Agencies—Written
Received (N) 12 91 13 116
116
Not at all Useful 16.67 38.46 30.77 35.34
Somewhat Useful 66.67 47.25 38.46 48.28
Very Useful 16.67 14.29 30.77 16.38

X2* = 2.3612 (0.3071)
1.18 (0.3097)
F = 1.18 (0.3097)
Mean 100 100 100 100
2.00° 1.76" 2.00" 1.81
Government/Consumer Agencies—
Conversational
Received (N) 6 46 10 62
Not at all Useful 0 13.04 0 9.68
Somewhat Useful 50.00 63.04 50.00 59.68
Very Useful 50.00 23.91 50.00 30.65
x2* _ 4 9779 (0.0830)
2.62 (0.0812)
F = 2.62 (0.0812)
Mean 100 100
100 100
100 100
100
2.50a
2.50a 2.1 ta
la 2.50"
2.50" 2.21
Family/Friends
Received (N) 22 187 43 252
Not at all Useful 31.82 26.20 6.98 23.41
Somewhat Useful 45.45 49.20 60.47 50.79
Very Useful 22.73 24.60 32.56 25.79
X2* = 5.8790 (0.0529)
F = 2.99 (0.0523)
Mean 100 100 100 100
1.91"
1.91" 1.98a
1.98a2.26a
2.26a 2.02
Notes:
1. The superscript * indicates that Cochran-Mant
ences in mean scores of perceived usefulness.
2. The superscripts a and b present the results of
alpha level of 0.05.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Table 6
Communication Mode and Perceived Usefulness
Financial Government/
Institutions Consumer Agencies Combined
Conversa
Conversa- Conversa-
Conversa Conversa
Conversa
Communication
Communication Mode Mode Writtentional
Written tional Written
Written tional
tional Written
Written tional
tional
Not
Notatat
all all
useful
useful 147 27 41 6 188 33
34.92% 17.42% 35.34% 9.68% 35.61% 15.21%
Somewhat useful 204 71 56 37 260 108

48.46% 45.81% 48.28% 59.68% 47.54% 49.77%
Very useful 70 57 19 19 89 76
16.63% 36.77% 16.38% 30.65% 16.86% 35.02%
Total (N) 421 155 115 62 528 217
X2* 31.064 13.489 44.574
p-value < .0001 0.0002 <.0001
Note: *Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics are used to test differences in mean scores of perc
usefulness by communication mode.
versus conversational communication, the conversational mode was p

ceived as more useful than the written mode for communications initiated
by financial institutions and communications initiated by government/
consumer agencies (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0002, respectively). The effec
tiveness of conversational information was evident when the two channels
were collapsed (x2= 44.5745, p < 0.0001), thereby supporting Hypothe
sis 4 (see Table 6). About 85% of the respondents who had received con
versational information thought that the information was useful in making
decisions to use or not to use electronic banking services, whereas only
64 percent of the respondents who had received written information per
ceived it as useful.
Multinominal Logit Analysis
In order to observe distinct differences between the adopter groups, (1)

the Innovators and (2) the Imitators were compared to (3) the Non
Adopters; two log odds ratios were estimated in the subsequent multino
minal logit analysis:
In (P,/P3) and In (P2/P3),

where
Pj/Pj = probability of an individual being an Innovator over a Non-Adopter,

P,/P3 = probability of an individual being an Imitator over a Non-Adopter.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
] 8 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Table 7
Results of Multinominal Logit Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Analysis

In (P, / P3) = probability of being an Innovator over a Non-Adopter
In (P2 / P3) = probability of being an Imitator over a Non-Adopter
ln(P,/P,)
ln(P,/P3) ln(P,/P3) x2
Intercept 0.5696 2.2760 13.05

(0.6569) (0.0059) (0.0015)
(0.0015)
Communication
Financial Institutions—Written 0.9211*** 0.7094***
(<0.0001
(<0.0001)) (<0.0001)
«0.0001) (<0.0001)
«0.0001)
Financial Institutions—Conversational 0.6463** 0.1372 17.98***
(0.0024) (0.4639) (0.0001)
Government/Consumer Agencies 0.0650 0.0670 0.88

(0.7588) (0.6850) (0.6425)
Family/Friends 0.2243 0.0835 1.71
(0.2814) (0.6499) (0.4258)
Interaction between Financial Institutions— 0.4719* 0.5586** 9.36**
Conversational and Family/Friends (0.0237) (0.0024) (0.0093)
Demographic
Age -0.1046 -0.1025* 7.64*
(0.0930) (0.0061) (0.0219)
Age2 0.0009** 0.0012 9.64**
(0.1822) (0.0019) (0.0081)
Income 0.2144** 0.0755** 22 92***
(<0.0001) (0.0043) (<0.0001)
«0.0001)
Education 0.4705*** 0.3102*** 18.03**
(0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0001)
Male Single (Base = Married) -0.0055 0.2368 6.48
(0.9815) (0.1040) (0.1659)
Female Single (Base = Married) 0.3276 0.0219
(0.1703) (0.8706)
Likelihood Ratio 0.002 1177.15
(1.0000)
Note: Age2 Age Squared

***p<0.001
**p<0.01
*p<0.05
The tested model had a good fit. The probability associated with the
likelihood ratio was 1.0, p = 1.00, indicating that the membership of
adopter categories is very well explained by the communication factors
and the demographic variables included in the model.
The results of the multinominal logit analysis are presented in Table 7.
These results reflect that receiving written and conversational information

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
about electronic banking from financial instit

tively associated with the probability of being
thereby supporting Hypothesis 1. The results
information provided by financial institution
with the probability of belonging to the Imitat
In (P2/P3). However, receiving conversational in
institutions did not significantly influence the
the Imitator group.
Receiving information from government/co
influence the probability of being an Innovator
Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Receiving i
ment/consumer agencies also did not influence
Imitator over a Non-Adopter.
The main effect of receiving information fro
not a significant differentiator between th
Adopters. In other words, the effect of interp
the probability of being an Imitator over a Non
not significant by itself (ß = 0.0835, p = 0.65).
However, receiving information from family
the likelihood of the Imitator's adoption throu
other communication effects, thereby providi
Hypothesis 3. For example, the effect of conver
financial institutions is not significant by itse
0.1372, p = 0.46). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate how
when the two effects are combined. However,
information received from family and friends
the Imitators over the Non-Adopters increases
4.02 (see Figure 1).
The combined effects of multiple channels a
tion on consumer adoption of electronic banki
ined by including interaction terms in the mo
term—the interaction between receiving conver
financial institutions and interpersonal comm
friends—was found to be significant. Convers
financial institutions and interpersonal commun
be significant predictors of consumer adoption
their effects on consumer adoption, when com
When a consumer receives conversational info
friends and also from financial institutions, t
Innovator over a Non-Adopter increases from

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Figure 1
Odds Ratios: The Effect of Receiving Information from Family and Friends
on Adoption of Electronic Banking Technologies
Odds Ratio
4.5 -,
4 -
3.5 -
3-
2.5
2 -
1.5
1.18
1-
0.5
0
When a Consumer Didn't Receive When a Consumer Received Conversational
Conversational Information from Financial Information from Financial Institutions
Institutions
In (P|/P3) = probability of being an Innovator over a Non-Adopter

In (P2/P3) = probability of being an Imitator over a Non-Adopter
Likewise, for consumers who receive both types of conversational infor

mation compared to those who receive information only from financial
institutions, the odds of belonging to the Innovators over the Non
Adopters increase from 3.64 to 9.36 (see Figure 2).
Demographic variables were included as control variables and their
effects are reported briefly below. It was found that the effect of age was
negative for consumer adoption of electronic banking. The quadratic term
of age was significant on In (P,,/P3), suggesting a non-linear relationship
between age and the probability of belonging to the Imitators over the
Non-Adopters. Income and education had positive effects on consumer
adoption of electronic banking innovations, whereas being black or mar
ried did not have any significant impact on adoption.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Figure 2
Odds Ratios: The Effect of Receiving Conversational Information from
Financial Institutions on Adoption of Electronic Banking Technologies
Odds Ratio
10
9.36
9
71
4.02
4
When a Consumer Didn't Receive Information When a Consumer Received Information from
from Family/Friends Family/Friends
In (P/Pj) = probability of being an Innovator over a Non

In (P2/P3) = probability of being an Imitator over a No
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Despite the importance of the communication process in the success

ful diffusion of new technology, few studies have examined how channels
and modes of communication can affect consumer adoption. This study
investigated the effects of channel and mode of communication on con
sumer adoption of electronic banking innovations under the theoretical
framework of Diffusion of Innovations as communication process.
We found that communication factors are indeed significant predictors
of consumer adoption of electronic banking innovations. Among the three
channels identified from the proposed taxonomy, financial institutions are
currently the most active diffusion agents for consumers. Specifically,
receiving written information from financial institutions is likely to
increase the probability of adopting electronic banking innovations,
which indicates that written communication devices issued by financial
institutions are effective tools.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
As the previous literature suggests, the go

information flow can help consumers m
(Brown, Berry, and Goel 1990). The govern
efforts were found to be positively associa
the innovation (Moon and Bretschneider 1
receiving information from a third party was
It appears that, presently, the role of gove
tronic banking innovations is limited, beca
population has received any electronic bank
ment agencies. Despite significant efforts m
the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, only a
have been influenced by this initiative.
The importance of personal communicati
ful diffusion of innovations has been emp
cessful diffusion and its full penetration t
on whether the development of diffusion
activating interpersonal communication ch
that a significant interaction effect betw
tions and conversational communications i
tions. That is, the combination of conversa
cial institutions and family and friends' a
their adoption decision. Therefore, diffusio
vations by not only talking about the new t
but also encouraging them to make reco
family, neighbors, and friends.
Currently, the Non-Adopters seem to be i
munication activities because they do no
information from financial institutions, g
and family and friends. Although this grou
assistance to adopt innovation, they are gettin
diffusion agents in practice. Such uneven d
lack of communications can widen the g
ments high and low in socioeconomic st
geting communication campaigns, especial
ence, is necessary to narrow such gaps. Fo
indicate that professional information in li
way to reach the Non-Adopter consumers,
communication as more useful than written
is a need to promote the conversational mo
oping communication programs aiming at t

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Midgley and Dowling (1993) proposed that eve

viduals could adopt a technology at the early stag
are exposed to the right communication. This p
evidence that an individual consumer's adoption
communication factors. In addition, we sugge
strategies for technological innovations wou
adopting the notion of segmentation; disseminat
the right channel and the right mode of commu
sumer segments will likely increase each segme
technological innovations. Specifically, innovato
lean (written) and rich (conversational) informa
nels, and thus, reinforcing the intended messa
nels is recommended. We also found that, in ge
communication mode is perceived as more usef
munication mode when learning about technolo
Perhaps understanding the characteristics of ch
a particular communication channel or modality
influencing consumers' adoption decisions. In g
cations are unsolicited because they are initiate
government/consumer agencies. Consumers inc
this type of unsolicited communication (i.e.,
(Stigler 1961). However, because of weak relevan
mation to individual needs, the perceived usefu
may be limited (Wilton and Myers 1986). On th
mouth communications or discussions with emp
tutions allow consumers to take a more interactive role as communication
partners. Greater involvement during the conversation may yield greater
learning effects that can lead to behavioral changes after the communica
tion (Herr, Kardes, and Kim 1991).
Conversational communication is especially effective in reaching the
Non-Adopter consumers since they do not tend to perceive written com
munication as useful when learning about complex technological innova
tions. Technological innovations might require a rich (conversational)
communication mode that enables instant feedback and personalized
learning for these consumers. Therefore, consumer education efforts
should promote the conversation information dissemination strategy,
especially to reach the Non-Adopters.
Importantly, our finding that the interaction between commercial and
personal communications is a more significant predictor of the Imitators'
adoption than the effect of interpersonal communication alone needs fur

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
ther scrutiny in the light of Bass and his c

Imitators relating primarily to interper
today's complex and competitive market
multitude of communications from a variet
thus the interdependent nature of commer
nications and its influence on consumers'
rant future research attention.
Limitations of this study include the fact th

of information was used, mass communicat
ment consumer/agencies to consumers. Ho
instead of receive, information about techn
on their motivations and needs, and actively u
adoption decisions. Understanding consume
to use a specific channel and/or modality
shed light on why one type of information is
consumers' adoption decisions. Further spe
information flow coupled with specific con
additional light on the perceived usefulness
nication. In addition, our examination of c
include the case of multimedia informatio
and sound are all linked to create a richest form of information and the
enhanced interactivity of new media technology allows consumers to both
receive and seek information in real time (e.g., Internet communication).
As technological advances will allow such interactive, high-tech multime
dia communications in the near future, future research needs to investigate
the effectiveness of interactive, multimedia communication.
REFERENCES
Allen, Thomas J. 1971. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Disse
tion of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pre
Bank for International Settlements. 1995. Statistics on Payment Systems in the Group of Ten C
tries. December, Basle, Switzerland.
Barczac, Gloria, Pam Scholder Ellen, and Bruce K. Pilling. 1997. Developing Typologies of
sumer Motives for Use of Technologically Based Banking Services. Journal of Busin
Research, 38, 131-39.
Bass, Frank M. 1969. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables. Management Scie
15 (January):215-27.
Bayus. Barry, Vincent Carroll, and Ambar Rao. 1985. Harnessing the Power of Word-of-Mout
Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance, ed. by V. Mahajan and Y. Wind.
bridge, MA: Ballinger, 61-83.
Beales, Howard, Michael B. Mazis, Steven C. Salop, and Richard Staelin. 1981. Information R
dies for Consumer Protection. American Economic Review, 71 (May):410-13.
Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel. 1989. Measurement of Consu
Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March): 473-81.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Bloch, Peter H., Daniel L. Sherrel, and Nancy M. Ridgway. 1

Framework, Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June):l 19-26.
Brown, Jacqueline Johnson and Peter Reingen. 1987. Social T
Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December):350
Brown, M. A., Berry, L., and Goel R. 1990. Guidelines for Suc
Sponsored Innovations. Research Policy, 20(2): 121 -43.
Bush, C. L. 1981. Taking Hold of Technology: Topic Guide for
University Women. Washington, DC.
Campbell, Tricia. 1999. Back in Focus. Sale and Marketing Ma
Carlson, Patricia J. and Gordon B. Davis. 1998. An Investigati
tors and Managers: From "Self' to "Other" Orientation. MIS
Celsi, Richard and Jerry C. Olson. 1988. The Role of Involvemen
Processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September):21
Cohen, Marcel 1999. Insights into Consumer Confusion. C
213.
Consumers' Research Magazine. 1999. So Much for the Checkl
Daft, Richard L. and Robert H. Lengel. 1984. Information Ric
ial Behavior and Organizational Design. Research in Organiz
Daft, Richard L. and Robert H. Lengel. 1986. Organizational
Richness, and Structural Design. Management Science, 32 (5
Dabholkar, Pratibha. 1996. Consumer Evaluations of New Tech
An Investigation of Alternative Models of Service Quality. Int
Marketing, 13 (1):29-51.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of
mation Technology. MIS Quarterly (September):319-39.
Dickerson, Mary D. and James W. Gentry. 1983. Characteristi
Home Computers. Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (Septe
Fain, Deborah and Mary Lou Roberts. 1997. Technology vs. Co
Financial Services Customer. Journal of Direct Marketing, 1
Furse, David, Girish Punj, and David Stewart. 1984. A Typolo
Among Purchasers of New Automobiles. Journal of Consum
Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson. 1985. A Propositi
Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4):849-67.
Herr, Paul M., Frank R. Kardes, and John Kim. 1991. Effect
Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagno
sumer Research, 17 (March):454-62.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1980. Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking a
Consumer Research, 1 (December): 289-95.
Hirschman, Elizabeth. 1987. Adoption of an Incredibly Compl
Humanistic Viewpoint, in Wallendorf, W. and Anderson
Research, 14, 376-77.
Katona, George and Eva Mueller. 1955. A Study of Purchase
Consumer Behavior—The Dynamics of Consumer Reaction,
versity Press.
Katz, Elihu. 1957. The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-to-Date Report on an Hypothesis.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 61-78.
Katz, Elihu and Paul Lazarfeld. 1955. Personal Influence. The Part Played by People in the Flow of
Communication. New York: The Free Press.
Keller, Robert T. 1994. Technology-Information Processing Fit and the Performance of R&D Project
Groups: A Test of Contingency Theory, Academy of Management Review, 37 ( 1 ): 167-179.
Kennickell, Arthur B. and M. L. Kwast. 1997. Who Uses Electronic Banking? Results from the 1995
Survey of Consumer Finances. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Economics
Association, July, Seattle, Washington.
Lee, Eun-Ju and Jinkook Lee. 2000. Haven't Adopted Electronic Financial Services Yet? The Accep
tance and Diffusion of Electronic Banking Innovations. Financial Counseling and Planning, 11
( 1):51 -62.
Lee, Jinkook. 2001. A Key to Marketing Financial Services: The Right Mix of Products, Services,
Channels, and Customers. Journal of Services Marketing, forthcoming.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
Lee, Jinkook, and Jeanne Hogarth, 2000. Relationship Am

Shopping for a Credit Card. Journal of Consumer Affair
Lee, Jinkook and Jeanne M. Hogarth. 2001. Shopping fo
mation. Financial Services Review, 9 (3): 277-93.
Lengel, Robert, H. and Richard L. Daft. 1988. The Select
utive Skill. The Academy of Management Executives, 1
Lockett, Nick 1999. How to SecurS Electronic Transaction
Review, 18 (3. 9-11.
Mahajan, Vijay, Eitan Muller, and Frank M. Bass 1990. N
ing: A Review and Directions for Research. Journal of M
Mahajan, Vijay, Eitan Muller, and Roger Kerin 1984. Introd
itive and Negative Words of Mouth. Marketing Science
Mahajan, Vijay, Eitan Muller, and Rajendra Srivastava 1990.
Using Innovation Diffusion Models. Journal of Marketi
Maitz, Eliot. 2000. Is All Communication Created Equal?: A
munication Mode on Perceived Information Quality. Jo
agement, 17 (2): 110-127.
Mattelart, Armand, Michèle Mattelart, and Susan Gruenhec
cation: A Short Introduction. London: Sage Publications
Mazis, Michael B., Richard Staelin, Howard Beales, and St
uating Consumer Information Regulation. Journal of Ma
Mester, Loretta J. 2000. The Changing Nature of the Pay
New Rules? Business Review—Federal Reserve Bank
April, 3- 27.
Midgley, David F. and Grahame R. Dowling. 1978. Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measure
ment, Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (March. 229-242.
Midgley, David F. and Grahame R. Dowling. 1993. A Longitudinal Study of Product Form Innova
tion: The Interaction between Predispositions and Social Messages. Journal of Consumer
Research, 19 (March):611-25.
Miles, Rae. 2000. Top 10 Technologies. Credit Union Magazine, 66 (7):82-86.
Moenaert, Rudy K. and William E. Souder. 1996. Context and Antecedents of Information Utility at
the R&D/Marketing Interface, Management Science, 42 (11): 1592-1610.
Moon, Myung Jae and Stuart Bretschneider. 1997. Can State Government Actions Affect Innovation
and Its Diffusion?: An Extended Communication Model and Empirical Test. Technological Fore
casting and Social Change, 54 (l):55-77.
Newman, Joseph W. and Richard Staelin. 1972. Prepurchase Information Seeking for New Cars and
Major Household Appliances. Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (3):249-57.
Nuttall, Claire. 1998. Fresh Approach to Cleaning. Marketing Week, 21 (October 15):46-47.
O'Connell, Brian. 1999. Microsoft's Smart Card Play. Bank Technology News. January 20. 1-2.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo. 1982. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Periph
eral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.
Price, Linda L., Lawrence F. Feick, and Robin A. Higie. 1987. Information Sensitive Consumers and
Market Information. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 21 (2):328-41.
Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. 1973. Communication of Innovations. New York: The
Free Press.
Rice, Robert E. 1993. Media Appropriateness: Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Traditional
and New Organizational Media. Human Communication Research, 19. 451-484.
Sheth, Jagdish N. and Rajendra S. Sisodia. 1999. Revisiting Marketing's Lawlike Generalizations.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 ( 1 ):71 -87.
Stigler, George J. 1961. The Economics of Information. The Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213
25.
Talmor, S. 1995. New Life for Dinosaur. The Banker, 145 (September):77.
Thomas, Gloria Penn. 1992. The Influence of Processing Conversational Information on Inference,
Argument Elaboration, and Memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June):83-92.
Thorelli, Hans B. 1971. Concentration of Information Power Among Consumers. Journal of Market
ing Research, 8 (November):427-32.

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00
U.S. Department of Treasury. 1999. Federal Acquisition Re

March 4. http://www.fms.treas.gov/eft/regs/fareft.txt. (acc
Westbrook, Robert, A. and Claes Fornell. 1979. Patterns
Durable Goods Buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 1
Westmyer, Stephanie A., Rachel L. DiCioccio, and Rebecca
Effectiveness of Communication Channels in Competent In
of Communication, 48 (3):27-48.
White. Lawrence. J. 1998. Technological Change, Financial I
the U.S.: The Challenges for Public Policy. Working Paper
University.
Wilkie, William L. and Peter R. Dickson. 1985. Shopping fo
Patterns of Information Search. Cambridge, MA: Marketing
Wilton, Peter C. and John Myers. 1986. Task, Expectancy, a
Information Utilization Processes. Journal of Consumer R

134.100.40.9 on Tue, 05 Sep 2023 14:14:40 +00:00

The Influence of Communication Source and Mode On Consumer Adoption of Technological Innovations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Communication Source and Mode On Consumer Adoption of Technological Innovations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Communication Source and Mode on Consumer Adoption of

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23860157

This content downloaded from

EUN-JU LEE, JINKOOK LEE, AND DAVID W. SCHUMANN