Consumer Adopton oo New Products: Independent vs. Interdependent
Ma, Yang & Mourali
Theoretcal Background
Selo-construal: the perspectie that people haie about their thoughts and actons in relaton to
others.
There are two perspecties about the self (self-construal):
Independent self: iiew the self as autonomous and separate from others (self-others
differentaton).
Interdependent self: iiew the self as connected with others (self-others assimilaton).
The distnctieness of independents (is. interdependents) should make them more willing to adopt
new products. The effect of self-construal on new product adopton might be dependent on the
newness of the product. Independents are more likely to adopt really new products (RNPs) and
interdependents are more likely to adopt incrementally new products (INPs). These effects might be
driien by the perceiied ft between the product’s newness leiel and the optmal leiel of
distnctieness that the independent and interdependent selies want. Independents deriie a higher
distnctieness utlity from RNPs and interdependents deriie a higher distnctieness utlity from
INPs.
Distnctveness utlity: the product’s perceiied ability to proiide a desired sense of distnctieness.
Hypothesis 1: the effect of self-construal on consumer new product adopton is dependent on the
newness of the product. Independents are more willing to adopt RNPs and interdependents are
more willing to adopt INPs.
Hypothesis 2a: independents and interdependents diierge in the distnctieness utlity they deriie
from INPs and RNPs. Independents perceiie more distnctieness utlity in RNPs and interdependents
perceiie more distnctieness utlity in INPs.
Hypothesis 2b: perceiied distnctieness utlity mediates the joint effect of self-construal and
newness on innoiaton adopton.
Socially contextual cues that increase or decrease the perceiied distnctieness utlity of the products
can reierse self-related preferences for INPs and RNPs:
Distnctieness-dampening cues: popularity cues make an RNP a normatie instead of a
differentatng choice which makes an RNP less congruent with independents’ desired
distnctieness and more with those of interdependents. This will not affect INPs
Distnctieness-enhancing cues: scarcity cues make an INP more exclusiie which makes an
INP more congruent with the distnctieness needs of independents and less with those of
interdependents. This will not affect RNPs.
Hypothesis 3a: popularity cues make independents less willing to adopt RNPs.
Hypothesis 3b: popularity cues make interdependents more willing to adopt RNPs.
Hypothesis 3c: popularity cues do not affect independents’ or inter dependents’ adopton tendency
toward INPs.
Hypothesis 4a: scarcity cues make independents more willing to adopt INPs.
Hypothesis 4b: scarcity cues make interdependent less willing to adopt INPs.
, Hypothesis 4c: scarcity cues do not affect the independents or interdependents adopton tendency
toward RNPs.
Study 1
Method
Partcipants read ierbal descriptons of six pairs of INPs and RNPs that fall into six product categories.
Partcipants indicated (yesnno) whether they had bought each product for their own use. For the
products that they bought, they indicated the specifc year of purchase. We measured self-construal
using the Self-Construal Scale.
Results
Consumers were more likely to adopt INPs than RNPs
Independents are more willing to adopt RNPs and interdependents are more willing to adopt
INPs
Study 2
Method
Partcipants frst imagined a scenario about a tennis tournament (competng either as an indiiidual
or as a team) that primed different self-perspecties. Next, they assumed that they were in the
market for a new iehicle and came across a news report about a new car, described as either an INP
or an RNP. They then completed measures of purchase intenton, product knowledge, regulatory
focus, and demographics.
Results
Independents had a higher purchase intenton for RNPs
Interdependents had a higher purchase intenton for INPs.
Study 3
Method
Each partcipant receiied an enielope containing one pen and one print ad for a pen. We instructed
them to examine the material and proiide their impressions of the pen and the print ad. They then
completed measures of perceiied newness, attude toward the ad, attude toward the pen,
distnctieness utlity, perceiied risk, need for uniquueness, demographics, and one behaiioural
measure of product adopton.
Results
Independents had a higher purchase intenton for RNPs
Interdependents had a higher purchase
intenton for INPs
For RNPs, independents reported higher
distnctie-utlity
For INPs, interdependents reported higher
distnctie-utlity
For existng products, the two selies did not
differ in distnctie-utlity
Distnctieness utlity mediates the joint effect of
self-construal and newness on innoiaton adopton
Partcipants perceiied the RNP pen as riskier than the INP and existng pen, but perceiied
risk had no signifcant effect on adopton behaiiour.
Ma, Yang & Mourali
Theoretcal Background
Selo-construal: the perspectie that people haie about their thoughts and actons in relaton to
others.
There are two perspecties about the self (self-construal):
Independent self: iiew the self as autonomous and separate from others (self-others
differentaton).
Interdependent self: iiew the self as connected with others (self-others assimilaton).
The distnctieness of independents (is. interdependents) should make them more willing to adopt
new products. The effect of self-construal on new product adopton might be dependent on the
newness of the product. Independents are more likely to adopt really new products (RNPs) and
interdependents are more likely to adopt incrementally new products (INPs). These effects might be
driien by the perceiied ft between the product’s newness leiel and the optmal leiel of
distnctieness that the independent and interdependent selies want. Independents deriie a higher
distnctieness utlity from RNPs and interdependents deriie a higher distnctieness utlity from
INPs.
Distnctveness utlity: the product’s perceiied ability to proiide a desired sense of distnctieness.
Hypothesis 1: the effect of self-construal on consumer new product adopton is dependent on the
newness of the product. Independents are more willing to adopt RNPs and interdependents are
more willing to adopt INPs.
Hypothesis 2a: independents and interdependents diierge in the distnctieness utlity they deriie
from INPs and RNPs. Independents perceiie more distnctieness utlity in RNPs and interdependents
perceiie more distnctieness utlity in INPs.
Hypothesis 2b: perceiied distnctieness utlity mediates the joint effect of self-construal and
newness on innoiaton adopton.
Socially contextual cues that increase or decrease the perceiied distnctieness utlity of the products
can reierse self-related preferences for INPs and RNPs:
Distnctieness-dampening cues: popularity cues make an RNP a normatie instead of a
differentatng choice which makes an RNP less congruent with independents’ desired
distnctieness and more with those of interdependents. This will not affect INPs
Distnctieness-enhancing cues: scarcity cues make an INP more exclusiie which makes an
INP more congruent with the distnctieness needs of independents and less with those of
interdependents. This will not affect RNPs.
Hypothesis 3a: popularity cues make independents less willing to adopt RNPs.
Hypothesis 3b: popularity cues make interdependents more willing to adopt RNPs.
Hypothesis 3c: popularity cues do not affect independents’ or inter dependents’ adopton tendency
toward INPs.
Hypothesis 4a: scarcity cues make independents more willing to adopt INPs.
Hypothesis 4b: scarcity cues make interdependent less willing to adopt INPs.
, Hypothesis 4c: scarcity cues do not affect the independents or interdependents adopton tendency
toward RNPs.
Study 1
Method
Partcipants read ierbal descriptons of six pairs of INPs and RNPs that fall into six product categories.
Partcipants indicated (yesnno) whether they had bought each product for their own use. For the
products that they bought, they indicated the specifc year of purchase. We measured self-construal
using the Self-Construal Scale.
Results
Consumers were more likely to adopt INPs than RNPs
Independents are more willing to adopt RNPs and interdependents are more willing to adopt
INPs
Study 2
Method
Partcipants frst imagined a scenario about a tennis tournament (competng either as an indiiidual
or as a team) that primed different self-perspecties. Next, they assumed that they were in the
market for a new iehicle and came across a news report about a new car, described as either an INP
or an RNP. They then completed measures of purchase intenton, product knowledge, regulatory
focus, and demographics.
Results
Independents had a higher purchase intenton for RNPs
Interdependents had a higher purchase intenton for INPs.
Study 3
Method
Each partcipant receiied an enielope containing one pen and one print ad for a pen. We instructed
them to examine the material and proiide their impressions of the pen and the print ad. They then
completed measures of perceiied newness, attude toward the ad, attude toward the pen,
distnctieness utlity, perceiied risk, need for uniquueness, demographics, and one behaiioural
measure of product adopton.
Results
Independents had a higher purchase intenton for RNPs
Interdependents had a higher purchase
intenton for INPs
For RNPs, independents reported higher
distnctie-utlity
For INPs, interdependents reported higher
distnctie-utlity
For existng products, the two selies did not
differ in distnctie-utlity
Distnctieness utlity mediates the joint effect of
self-construal and newness on innoiaton adopton
Partcipants perceiied the RNP pen as riskier than the INP and existng pen, but perceiied
risk had no signifcant effect on adopton behaiiour.
