Cultural Differences in Desire for Control and Openness to Innovation

Gita V. Johar, Ali Faraji-Rad, Shiri Melumad Columbia Business School

Abstract Understanding the factors that prevent consumers from accepting new products and innovations is critical for firms because it helps firms devise mechanisms to overcome such barriers. We propose that a consumer personality variable, desire for control, negatively affects consumers acceptance of new products. Desire for control varies across culture and is therefore likely to result in cultural differences in the acceptance of new products. We focus on Chinese and Indian cultures and propose to investigate how differences in desire for control between these two cultures result in different levels of acceptance of new products. Based on an understanding of these barriers, we propose to devise and test interventions that would enable firms to overcome barriers to acceptance of new products in each culture.

Consumers openness to innovation and acceptance of new products is of major interest to many firms. The cost of producing innovative new products is high, and these products have an extremely low rate of successonly 40% to 60% of them succeed (Gourville, 2006). Firms usually have to choose between two options in rolling out new products: radical innovations (highly innovative products), or incremental improvements (incrementally new products). Therefore, other than facing the dilemma of how to innovate, firms have to determine when to innovate. And when they innovate, firms must understand the factors that influence the acceptance of products in their target markets. If firms are able to gauge consumers propensity to accept new products and innovations in different cultures (i.e., markets), they will be able to make more informed decisions regarding when and where to roll out their innovative products. Further, it is essential for firms to understand how the mechanisms that hinder the acceptance of new products differ cross-culturally. By understanding how these mechanisms work across cultures, firms can devise effective communication strategies that will enable them to counter such barriers and increase the likelihood of success of their innovative products. In this research proposal we focus on desire for control as a barrier to acceptance of new products and innovations. We propose that those with high desire for control will be less open to innovation, and that levels of desire for control vary across cultures. We predict that cultures will vary in their openness to innovation as a result of differences in levels of desire for control. We also propose that, within each culture, firms will be able to counter this barrier to acceptance of new products by changing the way they communicate information about their new products. For example, consumers desire for

control may be satisfied through the product communication (e.g., advertisement) itself. In the subsequent sections we introduce the theoretical background and briefly discuss the methods we intend to use to test our hypotheses.

Uncertainty and Control

Psychologists have identified peoples innate and natural motivation to reduce uncertainty and thereby increase control. Leotti, Iyengar, and Ochsner (2010) have argued that peoples desire for control is a biological desire that is even shared with other non-human animals. A sense of control significantly impacts a person's mental wellbeing (e.g. Hiroto & Seligman, 1975, Miller & Selligman, 1975). Prior research suggests that cultural differences in need for control may exist. For example, Hofstede (1980) suggested that Eastern cultures are more uncertainty-avoidant than Western cultures, suggesting that Easter cultures have higher desire for control. Eastern cultures view uncertainty as negative and emphasize the use of rules and regulations to maintain predictability in the social environment. In contrast, Western cultures are generally more tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty and place less emphasis on rules and regulations that maintain certainty (Hofstede, 1980). Similarly, Triandis (1989, 1990) explains that loose cultures encourage freedom and deviation from norms, whereas tight cultures promote norms, and deviation from those norms is punished. Individuals in tight cultures prefer predictability, certainty, security, and control, while individuals from loose cultures prefer creativity and diversity (Triandis, 1989). Weisz, Rothbaum, and Blackburn (1984) discussed differences between Japan and the United States with regard

to desire for control. Japanese organizations are more likely to possess a clear and visible hierarchy among the various levels within a firm than American organizations. This distinction of status within Japanese organizations serves to minimize uncertainty, anxiety, and disappointment and to maintain control within their workplace. Finally, Vishwanath (2003) showed that people in high uncertainty-avoidance cultures exhibit drastic behavioral changes when faced with limited information within an ambiguous decision context than people in low uncertainty-avoidance cultures. Collectively, these earlier works suggest that cultural differences in need for control may have down-stream behavioral consequences. While the extant literature has focused on the difference in desire for control between Eastern and Western cultures, it seems that no work has yet examined this difference amongst Eastern cultures (e.g., Chinese vs. Indian).

Need for Control, Acceptance of New Products, and the Role of Culture

The causal relationship between desire for control and acceptance of innovations has not been empirically tested. However, there is some evidence that such a relationships exists. For example, desire for control is correlated with peoples cognitive flexibility, and cognitive flexibility has been shown to increase acceptance of innovations (Jhang, Grant, & Campbell, 2012). We ran two pilot studies among Indian and Chinese participants to collect preliminary evidence for the inverse relationship between desire for control and openness to innovations. In one pilot study, subjects from India (n = 33) were told that a company was developing vitamin-fortified beverages. Subjects were presented with two of the

products and were asked to indicate their attitudes towards each of these products. One product was vitamin-fortified orange juice, and the other product was vitamin-fortified vodka. Prior research has shown that consumers deem vitamin-fortified vodka as more innovative than vitamin-fortified orange juice (Jhang et al., 2012). Subjects then responded to items from the desirability of control scale (Burger and Cooper, 1979). We created an acceptance of innovative products measure by subtracting each subjects rating of vitamin-fortified juice from vitamin-fortified vodka. We found that subjects with lower desire for control were more accepting of the innovative product ( = -.450, t(31) = -1.754, p = .089). A second pilot study with an identical design, but among Chinese participants (n = 29) similarly showed an inverse relationship between desire for control and acceptance of new products ( = -1.629, t(28) = -2.592, p = .015). These results therefore serve as a promising first step in our intended research. Our proposed plan of research consists of three steps. In the first step, we plan to establish the causal relationship between desire for control and openness to innovation. This will be done by manipulating and measuring desire for control and measuring its effect on consumers acceptance of new products both in a lab and field setting. Prior research also points to cultural differences in desire for control. The second step in our research is to understand how such cultural differences in desire for control contribute to willingness to accept new innovations. Our emphasis in this cultural analysis will be on China versus India. We plan to first conduct focus group studies among consumers and managers from these two cultures to gain a deeper insight into such cultural differences. We also plan to identify datasets from multinational companies that have launched new products in China and India and examine the diffusion of

innovation across these cultures. Most cross-cultural research has focused on differences between Western and Eastern cultures, and less research has focused on the differences between China and India. Therefore, exploratory research in the early stage of the study is necessary. We plan to follow up on the focus groups and secondary data analyses with lab and field experiments. The third step in our research is to construct interventions to counter the negative effects of desire for control on the acceptance of new products. We plan to identify interventions that are relevant to the barriers to innovation present in each culture. We are interested in two types of interventions. First, marketing communications (e.g., embedded in advertisements for a new innovative product) that would inform consumers that their high need for control is influencing their decision-making. Research in psychology has shown that when people are informed about the effects of their feelings and motivations on decision-making, they are able to correct for them (e.g., Schwarz & Clore, 1983). Second, we plan to design interventions that result in a stronger perception of control. This third step in our research will also deploy laboratory and field experiments in each of the cultures. Once this research is complete, we plan to present the findings in conferences such as Marketing Science and the Association for Consumer Research and to publish the findings in a marketing journal such as the Journal of Marketing Research.

References Burger, J.M. and Cooper, H.M. (1979), The Desirability of Control, Motivation and Emotion, 3, 381-393. Gourville, John T. (2006), Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of New-Product Adoption, Harvard Business Review, 84 (June), 98 106. Hiroto, D.S., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1975) Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 311-327. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jhang, J. H., Grant, S. J., & Campbell, M. C. (2012). Get It? Got It. Good! Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity, Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (April), 247 259. Leotti1, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K., N. (2010). Born to choose: the origins and value of the need for control, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (10). Miller, W.R., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1975) Depression and learned helplnessness in man. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgment of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 51323. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

Triandis, H. C. (1990). Theoretical concepts that are applicable to the analysis of ethnocentrism. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 3455). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Vishwanath, A. (2003). Comparing online information effects: A cross-cultural comparison of online information and uncertainty avoidance. Communication Research, 30(6), 579-598. Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39, 955-969.