Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement

Author(s): David F. Midgley and Grahame R. Dowling

Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Mar., 1978), pp. 229-242
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488813
Accessed: 07-03-2020 06:59 UTC

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

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

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

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Innovativeness: The Concept
and Its Measurement

DAVID F. MIDGLEY
GRAHAME R. DOWLING*

The nature of innovativeness, and its relationship to adoption, are explored

in this article. It is argued that innovativeness should be conceptualized at a
higher level of abstraction, and that explicit recognition should be given to the
complex communication processes intervening between this construct and
observable behavior.

A QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTION as those listed in Rogers and Shoemaker. These char-

There is little doubt that the study of the adoption ofand not necessarily to all the various new
innovations
new products and the innovativeness of individual con-
sumers is well established in the literature. Since 1970,
there have been in excess of 25 articles, research notes,
and communications on this topic in relevant journals.1
While the study of new product adoption has aided in
discovering the characteristics of consumer innova-
tors, it has also initiated a series of controversies. Con-
sider some examples. We have seen dispute over the
relation between innovativeness and psychological
variables (Robertson and Myers 1969, 1970; Bruce and
Witt 1970; Blake, Perloff, and Heslin 1970; Jacoby
1971; Coney 1972), over possible innovativeness over-
lap (Ostlund 1972, 1973; Tatham and Dornoff 1973),
and over the characteristics of the buyers of a major
automobile innovation (Feldman and Armstrong 1975a,
1975b; Peat, Gentry and Brown 1975). Robertson (1971,
p. 100-1), Pizam (1972, p. 203-9) and Engel, Kollat,
and Blackwell (1973, p. 600) have tabulated the con-
fused and contradictory nature of the empirical studies
relating consumer innovativeness to sociodemographic,
attitudinal, and personality factors. For such factors
we have numerous studies suggesting both positive and
negative relationships with innovativeness and many
indicating no relationship whatsoever. Rogers and
Shoemaker (1971, p. 352-375) provide a similarly con-
fused picture for the field of diffusion studies as a
whole. As far as consumer innovativeness is con-
cerned, part of the problem may stem from an inappro-
priate selection of variables from such characteristics
* David F. Midgley is Lecturer, Australian Graduate School of
Management, University of New South Wales, P. O. Box 1, Kensing-
ton, New South Wales, Australia 2033. Grahame R. Dowling is
Lecturer, Department of Commerce, University of Newcastle,
New South Wales, Australia 2308.
acteristics relate to major functional or discontinuous
products studied in the marketing literature, many of
which are minor product modifications. However, it
appears more likely that the fundamental difficulty lies
in the definition and measurement of the innovativeness
construct.
It can be argued that researchers in this area make
two implicit assumptions. First, that innovativeness is
a personality trait possessed, to a greater or lesser
degree, by all members of a society, and second, that
what is being measured (in the reported studies) is, in
fact, this trait. Our notion of a personality trait here
is one of a persisting characteristic or disposition by
which one individual can be distinguished from another
(English and English 1958; Wolman 1973), where in-
novativeness is viewed as a continuum from high to
low. These assumptions are central both to the theory
of innovative behavior as it currently stands, and per-
haps more importantly to the research methodologies
employed in the published studies of new product
adoption.
In this respect, it should be noted that the underlying
goal of most reported studies is to establish criteria for
segmenting the consuming population into innovators
and noninnovators. This is combined with the assump-
tion that any criteria thus established will be applicable
to future new products and therefore useful from the
point of view of product development, market re-
search, media selection, etc., i.e., an individual's in-
novativeness is a persisting characteristic. Many such
studies also implicitly make the second, and in our view
weaker, assumption of direct correspondence between
observable behavior and the trait innovativeness.
1 The Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, and
Journal of Marketing Research.

229 ? JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH * Vol. 4 . March 1978

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 230 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE A adoption is concerned has distinct limitations. By elect-

THE EXISTING MODEL OF INNOVATIVENESS ing for this particular, perhaps radical, stance it is
hoped to stimulate further discussion on this vital topic.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CIOLOGICAL In one small way, we are also taking up the recent
TRAITS TRAITS
plea by Rogers (1976) for a more process-oriented ap-
CONSTRUCT proach to research in this field.

FIELD { INNOVATIVENESS
THE MEASUREMENT OF
--- --- --- ---- ---1 ---- - -- - - - INNOVATIVENESS
TRAIT MEASURE, TRAIT MEASURE,
i.e., QUESTIONNAIRE i.e., QUESTIONNAIRE Rogers and Shoemaker (1971 p. 27) define innova-
tiveness as "the degree to which an individual is rela-
PHENOMENA
PLANE
tively earlier in adopting an innovation than other mem-
bers of his system," with an accompanying footnote to
the effect that: "By relatively earlier is meant earlier in
terms of actual time of adoption, rather than whether
INNOVATIVENESS MEASURE, i.e., the individual perceives he adopted the innovation rela-
RELATIVE TIME OF ADOPTION
tively earlier than others in his system." This is essen-
tially an operational definition since it is couched di-
The purpose of this paper is to question the validity rectly in terms of the measurement of innovativeness,
of the second assumption. It will be argued that some viz., the time taken for an individual to adopt.
contemporary methodologies do not provide reliable This temporal conception of innovativeness is cen-
measurements of a personality trait, "innovativeness," tral to much of the published research (Rogers 1976
and indeed that much of the current practice regarding p. 295) and leads directly to the employment of the
the definition and measurement of innovativeness is "relative time of adoption" methodology in many stud-
tautological. The prime focus of our attack is on meth- ies. By and large, in the marketing literature re-
odologies which equate time of adoption with innova- searchers have used two main techniques to measure
tiveness, and in doing so ignore the dynamic social innovativeness, either a variant of the time of adoption
processes which characterize the diffusion of innova- method, or what might be termed the "ownership of
tions. Essentially, the conceptualization of innovative- new products" or "cross-sectional" method ("cross-
ness accepted by many previous authors (depicted in sectional" after Robertson and Myers.1969). The first
Figure A) is that of a simplistic trait-behavior model, technique usually involves defining as innovators those
and as such represents a theoretical stance largely dis- individuals who purchase in the first X weeks, months,
credited in other areas of the behavioral sciences (e.g., etc., after product launch or those individuals who con-
Mischel 1968; Peterson 1968). stitute the firstX percent of a given market to purchase.
What is observable is the act and time of adoption or The second technique basically involves determining
purchase of a new product. Innovativeness itself is a how many of a prespecified list of new products a par-
hypothetical construct postulated to explain and/or pre- ticular individual has purchased at the time of the
dict such observable phenomena, but existing only in survey.
the mind of the investigator and at a higher level of Some examples from the literature will serve to dem-
abstraction. A "hypothetical construct" is an interpre- onstrate the prevalence of these techniques. Haines
tive concept which refers to some unobservable prop- (1966) used purchasers of products which had been on
erty of objective reality, but which can be related to the market "several months," while Donnelly and
human experience via some intervening theoretical sys- Ivancevich (1974) and Peat, Gentry, and Brown (1975)
tem (a view of science mainly derived from the work defined innovators as those who purchased in the first
of Bunge 1967). Thus, the construct, innovativeness, three and four months, respectively. Feldman and
only has meaning within the relevant theoretical sys- Armstrong (1975a) defined "early buyers" as the first
tem, that is, the theory of the diffusion of innovations. 2,500 to purchase an automobile innovation. Bell
The essence of the argument in this paper is that the (1963), Robertson (1968), and Robertson and Kennedy
trait-behavior model is an inadequate representation of (1969) used a 10 percent market penetration definition.
this system, and that in the context of any specific Those using the cross-sectional or ownership method
innovation, complex situational and communication ef- include Summers (1971, 1972), Darden and Reynolds
fects intervene between individuals' innovativeness (1974), Green, Langeard, and Favell (1974), Green and
and their observed time of adoption. Some of the de- Langeard (1975), King and Sproles (1973), and Baum-
fects of the current model of innovative behavior stem garten (1975).
from the operationalist philosophy adopted by many In fact, this paper cites 23 single methodology studies
researchers, a philosophy which the authors do not of innovativeness thus providing a reasonably compre-
share, and which as far as the study of new product hensive, although not exhaustive, survey of the litera-

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 INNOVATIVENESS
ture.2 Of these studies, 48 percent utilized the "relative
time of adoption technique," 39 percent the cross-sec-
tional technique, and the remainder used purchase in-
tentions as a measure of innovativeness. Very little
space is devoted in these publications to the nature of
innovativeness as a construct (Darden and Reynolds
being one exception); in particular, few explicit defini-
tions of innovativeness are evident. However, implicit
within all is the notion of innovativeness as relative
time of adoption. Phrases such as "early purchasers,"
''early triers," "adopt new ideas or products earlier,"
"how likely she was to buy in the first weeks" are
common, and denote these researchers' temporal con-
ception of innovativeness. This conclusion is further
reinforced by noting that 70 percent of these studies
cite the seminal work of Rogers, either as Rogers (1962)
or as Rogers and Shoemaker (1971). Thus, by implica-
tion there is widespread acceptance of the temporal
concept and definition of innovativeness just given.
Few, if any, alternative conceptualizations have ap-
peared in the literature.
One important distinction which can be made be-
tween these 23 studies concerns the level of generality
or abstraction at which innovativeness was measured.
The majority of the researchers utilizing relative time
of adoption (i.e., by respondent recall or time of pur-
chase data) are studying innovativeness in the context
of a single product innovation. Those employing the
cross-sectional technique are, by the very nature of this
measurement device, studying innovativeness with re-
spect to a product category. Now, to a certain extent,
researchers using the cross-sectional methodology ap-
pear to view this merely as a convenient surrogate
for a direct measure of time of adoption. For instance,
Summers (1971 p. 314) provides the rationale:
Since respondents whose average time to adoption is
shorter tend to own more products, innovativeness
scores for each product category were based on the
number of products reported owned from lists included
in the questionnaire.
In his discussion of methodologies, Robertson (1971
p. 90) states:
However, it also may be expected that at a given point
of time, individuals who are typically the first to adopt
will also have adopted more items.
There is little doubt that the cross-sectional tech-
nique suffers from fewer problems of respondent recall
than does the direct time of adoption method and may
therefore be a more practical measure to employ. How-
2 Baumgarten 1975; Bell 1963; Blake, Perloff, and Heslin 1970;
Coney 1972; Darden and Reynolds 1974; Donnelly and Ivancevich
1974; Feldman and Armstrong 1975a; Green, Langeard, and Favell
1974; Green and Langeard 1975; Haines 1966; Jacoby 1971; King
and Sproles 1973; Lambert 1972; Ostlund 1972, 1974; Peat, Gentry,
and Brown 1975; Peterson 1973; Robertson 1968; Robertson and
Myers 1969; Robertson and Kennedy 1968; Summers 1971, 1972;
and Taylor 1977.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
231
ever, the view that it is a surrogate for time of adoption
is a misconception; its value derives because it meas-
ures a more meaningful construct of innovativeness.
As will be discussed subsequently, if we admit a more
complex model of innovative behavior than the simple
trait-behavior scheme, it becomes necessary to take ac-
count of the effects of situational factors and interper-
sonal communication. In turn, this implies that the in-
novators of one new product are not necessarily the
innovators of the next product introduced into the cate-
gory, and indeed, they may not even be adopters of the
next product innovation. The worth of the cross-sec-
tional technique is that by taking a large battery of new
products in a particular category, we control for some
of the situational and communication effects associated
with each individual product on the list. The technique
also controls for respondent interest in the product
category as a whole.
In essence, the cross-sectional technique measures
a deeper and more abstract construct of innovative-
ness, and one which is closer to some basic expression
of an individual's personality. Instead of having only
one expression of this personality trait as observed be-
havior we have several, thus, gaining confidence in the
obtained measure. However, to further confuse the is-
sue, we also have studies of the type exemplified by
Summers (1971) which seek to detect innovativeness
across several product categories. This is innovative-
ness implicitly conceived and measured at a third, yet
higher, level of abstraction, namely, with respect to all,
or at least many, consumer product categories, thus
approaching the idea of innovativeness as a generalized
personality trait. Therefore, while it would appear that
most researchers may have basically the same temporal
concept of innovativeness, the measures they use oper-
ate at different levels of abstraction. We have direct
measures of time of adoption with respect to single
new products and cross-sectional measures applied
both to individual product categories and across several
such categories.
Carried to its logical conclusion, this argument would
imply that the different measurement techniques really
relate to different constructs of innovativeness, and
therefore, that studies using different methodologies
could not be expected to yield comparable results.
There is some support for this conclusion in previous
empirical research. Kohn and Jacoby (1973, p. 837) re-
port a test of three measures of innovativeness applied
to five product categories in an experimental situation.
The measures were:
A. purchase or failure to purchase an innovation alterna-
tive within the context of a shopping simulation
experiment;
B. the score on a self-designation measure of innova-
tiveness; and
C. the score on a questionnaire designed to assess past
innovative purchasing behavior.
 232 THE JOURNAL OF
Measure C is the cross-sectional method in the context
of a product category, while Measure A is the closest
analog to the time of adoption of a single product that
is possible in an experimental situation. Low correla-
tions were found between the three measures, leading
Kohn and Jacoby to conclude that the methods were
not measuring the same hypothetical constructs.
The fundamental issue is the construct validity of our
measurement devices (Cronbach and Meehl 1955). The
work of Kohn and Jacoby suggests that we have em-
pirical evidence, as well as compelling logical argu-
ments, for concluding that the relative time of adoption
and cross-sectional techniques relate to substantially
different concepts of innovativeness. Some limited evi-
dence to the contrary is provided by Uhl, Andrus, and
Poulsen (1970, p. 51) who in a study of grocery in-
novation laggards stated that these two methods yielded
"approximately the same results." However, it is diffi-
cult to extrapolate from laggards to innovators, and
therefore, difficult to give this evidence much weight.
For major farming innovations, Rogers and Rogers
(1961) concluded that the cross-sectional method is
roughly consistent with both self-image and the ratings
of external judges, but unfortunately, they did not
examine time of adoption techniques. Overall, then,
there does not appear to be any strong empirical
evidence for the proposition that the two main
measurement devices relate to the same construct.
It is more likely that measurements made at the three
levels of abstraction relate to three innovativeness con-
structs, each with a different domain or extension,
namely, a construct related to specific single products,
a construct related to single product categories, and a
construct related to several product categories (a gen-
eralized innovativeness construct). By implicitly as-
suming that the various techniques are measuring the
same generalized construct, we have made the current
concept of innovativeness extensionally vague. And
any concept which is extensionally vague is automati-
cally intensionally vague, i.e., its characteristics or at- struct of innovativeness. To explain reality we need
tributes are imprecisely specified (Bunge 1967, p. 100).
This is exactly the situation at present in regard to the
"known" characteristics of innovativeness.
At this juncture, we could follow an operationalist
line of reasoning: define three constructs in terms of the over several innovations and the measurements we ob-
ways they are measured and subsequently study these
constructs as separate entities. However, this would
seem philosophically unsound and likely to lead to fur-
ther confusion. An operationalist will only ascribe
meaning to concepts which can be measured directly,
and will only define these concepts in the exact terms of
their measurement. Thus temperature measured by a
mercury thermometer would not be synonymous with
temperature measured by thermoelectric effects.
The danger in this philosophy is that it introduces
circularity into our thinking and lowers all concepts to
the plane of empirical experience. This can be seen if
we re-examine Rogers' and Shoemaker's view of in-
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER RESEARCH
novativeness as noted earlier, a view which leads im-
mediately to the well-known adoption curve and to the
classification of individual adopters by use of standard
deviations from the average time of adoption. Given a
normal adopter distribution then, one finds 2.5 percent
of the adopting population being classed as innovators,
13.5 percent as early adopters, and so on.
Indeed, given this distribution, it is possible to carry
Rogers' and Shoemaker's ideas to their logical conclu-
sion and define a standardized innovativeness (relative
time of adoption) score as follows:
I = (m - t)ls, (1)
where I is one current metric for innovativeness, m is
the mean time of adoption for the social system, s the
standard deviation of adoption times and t the time at
which the particular individual in question adopts.
Thus, an individual gaining a score greater than or
equal to 2 is an innovator in the Rogers and Shoemaker
scheme. Equation (1) represents a symbolic summary
of the construct of innovativeness most widely ac-
cepted by contemporary researchers. 'As one of the
main methods by which this construct is measured, it is a
summary which exposes the theoretical and logical de-
ficiencies of this essentially operationalist approach.
The definition of innovativeness given at the start of this
section was effectively in terms of relative time of adop-
tion. Yet, the above measure is also in terms of relative
time of adoption, i.e., innovativeness is what we meas-
ure and what we measure is innovativeness.
This tautology is a barrier to progress in the field. By
anchoring the construct directly to its measurement,
researchers employing this relative time of adoption
methodology have rendered their version of innova-
tiveness innovation specific, leading to severe prob-
lems of inter-study comparison. The authors accept
that (m - t)ls is a valid, reliable, and useful measure,
but only of overt behavior with respect to a specific
innovation, and not necessarily of a meaningful con-
constructs postulated at a higher (nonobservable) level
of abstraction which, precisely because they are not
tied to specific innovations or specific measurement
devices, can explain both individuals' overt behavior
tain with different methodologies. An obvious corollary
is the relevant theoretical system by which such hypo-
thetical constructs may be linked to a specific situation
or measurement.
These arguments should not be taken to imply that
some variables cannot be defined in terms of their meas-
urement. Rather, such definition is only legitimate for
variables with a relatively low level of abstraction
(height, income, pupil dilation, purchase, etc.), that is,
concepts which may serve to link our theories to em-
pirical data. However, epistemologically, such low-
level variables are of minor importance. Where we
have a hypothetical construct, such as innovativeness,
 INNOVATIVENESS
which is central to the theory of the diffusion of innova-
tions, it is desirable not only that the construct and
measurement be logically distinct (Rozeboom 1966 p.
206), but also that the "rules of correspondence" link-
ing construct to data be specified (Margenau 1935; Car-
nap 1956).
By measuring innovativeness in several situations
researchers using cross-sectional methodologies have,
whether this was recognized or not, made the distinc-
tion between construct and measurement. Their con-
struct of innovativeness is less situation specific and
therefore at a higher level of abstraction, wherein lies
the greater value of these methods as opposed to rela-
tive time of adoption techniques. Unfortunately, and
as with other methods, researchers using cross-sec-
tional measurements have generally failed to articulate
their notion of innovativeness and to specify their rules
of correspondence. Presumably, this failure is a result
of viewing the cross-sectional method as merely a sur-
rogate for the more direct methodologies, i.e., a result
of the operationalist temporal concept of innovative-
ness common to most research in the field.
This operationalist notion of innovativeness also im-
plies that we may only ascribe meaning to those con-
structs which can be observed and measured or em-
pirically tested in some way. This confuses meaning
with testability. It would be more philosophically sound
to view meaning as deriving from the incorporation of
the construct into a theoretical system whose overall
adequacy is judged by empirical tests. We cannot test
concepts in isolation, only in their relevant context and
only by generating testable statements from these con-
cepts. Innovativeness or intelligence are not in them-
selves testable, but the statement, "intelligence is posi-
tively correlated with innovativeness," is testable and
derived from the theory of the diffusion of innovations.
Bunge (1967, p. 159) defines a scientifically valid con-
cept as one which is both intensionally and exten-
sionally precise, and which occurs within some theo-
retical system. Therefore, the precision of measure-
ment derives not only from the measurement devices
themselves, but also from the adequacy of the theory
itself, and in particular, the adequacy of the links be-
tween hypothetical constructs and those limited as-
pects of experience which can actually be measured.
Thus, the construct validity of a measurement device
essentially reduces to an issue of the adequacy of the
relevant theory or model.
In our context the debate can be centered on whether
time of adoption is solely and directly related to in-
novativeness as a personality trait (trait-behavior
model), whether it is merely a reaction to the extrinsic
situation (situational model), or whether it is related
to a combination of both trait and situation (interaction
or contingent model). But to progress any further with
these arguments it is first necessary to elucidate the
meaning of innovativeness -as an integral and central
construct of the theory of the diffusion of innovations.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
233
By doing so, it will be possible both to suggest the level
of abstraction at which the construct innovativeness
should be postulated, and to investigate the links be-
tween this particular construct and the measure of overt
behavior, that is, (m - t)ls.
THE MEANING OF INNOVATIVENESS
The theory of innovative behavior presented by
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) is built around certain
social processes, a major one being interpersonal com-
munication and its associated influence over the atti-
tudes and behavior of individuals. About 25 percent of
the empirical generalizations presented by Rogers and
Shoemaker are concerned with interpersonal com-
munication, and, as Midgley (1977, p. 36) notes it
would be difficult to account for the observed non-
linear cumulative adoption curves without this key
process. In situations where there is little or no inter-
personal influence, this schema could not be expected
to apply, and indeed it would be philosophically un-
sound to utilize the theory outside its valid domain.3 We
therefore restrict the following arguments to markets
where word-of-mouth communication is a factor in
adoption decisions.
Hence, the diffusion of a new product is, to a con-
siderable extent, determined by a communication proc-
ess in which individual experiences with the product
are disseminated verbally through a particular social
system. While it is considered that the mass media
mostly generates awareness, it is chiefly the favorable
personal recommendation of a socilal contact which is
thought to be instrumental in influencing an individual
to adopt.4 This conclusion fits not only with the evi-
dence cited later, but also with a plausible economic
theory which views advertising as informative rather
than persuasive (Nelson 1975). It is generally con-
sidered that the persuasive impact of interpersonal
communication increases as the risk perceived in the in-
novation by an individual increases, and therefore, has
greatest impact for products such as durables. How-
ever, this notwithstanding, some studies show signifi-
cant word-of-mouth effects for supposedly low-risk in-
novations (Arndt 1967a; Sheth 1971; and Day 1974).
Day also suggests that advertising may have a subsidi-
ary role of stimulating some interpersonal com-
munication.
3 Such low interpersonal influence situations are characterized
by a linear cumulative adoption curve (Mendez 1968).
4 Witness the 18 studies cited by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971,
p. 382, Generalization 8-1), "Mass media channels are relatively
more important at the knowledge function and interpersonal
channels are relatively more important at the persuasion func-
tion in the innovation-decision process." In the marketing litera-
ture, the relative effectiveness of word-of-mouth communication
has been documented by Whyte (1954), Haines (1966), Arndt
(1967a, 1967b), Engel, Blackwell, and Kegerreis (1969), and
Sheth (1971). In the social psychological literature, see Katz and
Lazarsfeld (1955) and the review by McGuire (1969).
 234 THE JOURNAL OF
The "innovators" of any one innovation are those
members of society prepared to adopt this new product
early in its diffusion, and therefore without the personal
or social support gained from discussions with prior
users.5 It is widely accepted that the messages these
innovators transmit to others initiate the interper-
sonally influenced adoption process.6 If these messages
are favorable to the product, further adoption is en-
sured, if unfavorable, the product may well be a failure.
While this outline of the diffusion of innovations is of
necessity brief, and therefore simplified, it is sufficient
to lead us to one important conclusion. If the majority
of any population only adopts after receipt of favorable
interpersonally-communicated information, then the
time of adoption is dependent on when this message (or
messages) was received. While this may be a reflection
of personal characteristics (self-confidence, gregarious-
ness, inner or other directedness, etc.), it is chiefly
dependent on the unique path by which the message
reaches any particular individual. This path will be
largely situationally, if not randomly, determined. For
many individuals to adopt requires, among other
noncommunication factors, that:
* they discuss the new product in question with another
individual (determined by gregariousness, interest,
the discussion situation, etc.);
* this other person is willing to transmit favorable in-
formation on the product (determined by their experi-
ence or knowledge of it, etc.);
* the receiver is receptive to such influence at that point
in time (determined by source credibility, persuasibil-
ity, message content, etc.); and
* the individual is in, or will be in, a situation where
purchase can follow the receipt of favorable informa-
tion.
Put another way, if interpersonal information is most
effective at the persuasion stage in an individual's adop-
tion decision process, then these conditions are prereq-
uisites for their favorable persuasion. Other prereq-
uisites would include that the individual had been
made aware of and become interested in the innova-
tion (presumably via mass media channels). More rele-
vantly, the time of persuasion is dependent on the time
elapsed before message reception.
5 Witness the eight studies cited by Rogers and Shoemaker
(1971, p. 383, Generalization 8-3), "Mass media channels are rela-
tively more important than interpersonal channels for earlier
adopters than for later adopters."
6 As evidenced by, among others, Bell (1963), Green and Langeard
(1975). Rogers and Shoemaker (1971, p. 375, Generalization 5-3,
42 studies supporting) provide some evidence that earlier adopters
are also more likely to be opinion leaders. Evidence from the
marketing literature (Robertson and Myers 1969; Summers 1971;
and Baumgarten 1975) indicates a small, but significant overlap
between innovativeness and opinion leadership. As Midgley (1977,
p. 72) notes, only a small effect is necessary to account for ob-
served diffusion processes.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER RESEARCH
Thus, the specific communication network generated
during the diffusion of any innovation is an important
determinant of the observed individual adoption times,
a conclusion which holds solely on the basis of our
assumption of a key role for interpersonal communica-
tion in the adoption decision process. Furthermore, as
a consequence of this communication dependence, a
particular individual's time of adoption may vary con-
siderably between innovations, since it is likely that the
messages relating to different product innovations
reach the individual via different paths on each occa-
sion. This is particularly so given the complex feed-
back effects in the communication system-since fu-
ture adoption is dependent on the messages existing at
a point in time, and these messages are in turn de-
pendent on previous adoption.
This view of the diffusion of innovations is some-
what akin to a "contagious" social experience transfer
or learning process leading to models such as those of
Bass (1969) and Midgley (1976). Hence, it may be ex-
tremely difficult to establish a clear-cut connection be-
tween a personality characteristic and time of adoption,
for intervening between the two is this complex com-
munication process. For example, in the context of
two successive innovations an individual with a certain
degree of empathy may display entirely different rela-
tive times of adoption, or in the context of one innova-
tion, a dogmatic individual may receive the necessary
influence before someone possessing a lesser degree of
this characteristic. Other possibilities are not difficult to
envisage.
The only individuals who will not display this com-
munication dependence will be those who do not utilize
interpersonal information in their decision making.
This provides us with our first insight into the nature
of innovativeness. However, before pursuing this in-
sight it is worth noting, albeit briefly, that communica-
tion is not the only variable intervening between per-
sonal characteristics and time of adoption; there are
also interest and other situational factors. On the basis
of his study of generalized innovators (cross-sec-
tionally defined and measured) Summers (1971, p. 316)
suggests:
. . . innovativeness may be a function both of situa-
tional variables, such as income and product involve-
ment, and behavioral considerations. It may be that situ-
ational factors are unique to specific products and prod-
uct categories and serve to constrain the individual's
innovativeness to particular areas, while his behavioral
(sociological, psychological, etc.) make-up influences
his basic tendency to innovate.
There is thus, a substantial argument for stating that
time of adoption has no direct or simple relationship
to an individual's personal characteristics (and hence
with innovativeness if conceptualized at this high level
of abstraction, especially in the context of any specific
single innovation). For a new product, the observed
 INNOVATIVENESS
pattern of adoption is a complex function of product
interest, individual situations, personal characteristics,
and most importantly for the majority of the population,
a network of interpersonal influence. For the re-
mainder, i.e., those individuals who do not use inter-
personal communication, time of adoption is some
function of product interest, individual situations, and
personal characteristics.
What then is the nature of innovativeness? Since
the diffusion of innovations is a communication proc-
ess, it seems intuitively appealing to define the con-
struct in communication terms. Following this line of
reasoning, Midgley (1977, p. 49) has advanced one pos-
sible definition of innovativeness as:
Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual
makes innovation decisions independently of the com-
municated experience of others.
"Communicated experience" is information passed
verbally between individual consumers and is generally
based on actual experience with the new product in
everyday usage.7
This definition is one of innovativeness as a gen-
eralized trait possessed by individuals-indeed a trait
which has some parallels with self-confidence, social
character (Riesman 1950) and self-monitoring (Snyder
1974). However, instead of equating this particular
view of innovativeness with any single other trait, it
seems more plausible to view it as a function of a num-
ber of (yet to be specified) dimensions of the human
personality.
Note that the definition is no longer couched in terms
of explicitly observable behavior, but is logically dis-
tinct from any such possible measures. We cannot ex-
plicitly observe a decision nor can we observe the
weight given to interpersonally communicated experi-
ence in that decision. What is feasible to observe, in the
language of Rozeboom (1966, p. 206), is the "paradigm
instances" of this formulation of innovativeness, that
is, to utilize our theory of innovative behavior to con-
nect the construct with measurable properties via some
set of intervening lower level hypotheses or rules of
correspondence. One of these "instances" (measura-
ble properties) is the act of adoption; another may be
a pencil and paper test on the appropriate variables.
Implicit in this definition is the assumption that all
members of society possess a greater or lesser degree
of innovativeness, and that the position an individual
takes on this continuum is dependent on how much in-
terpersonal information is required before making an
adoption/rejection decision. Hence, in this view inno-
vativeness is postulated at the highest level of abstrac-
tion, i.e., with respect to all product innovations. To
avoid confusion with the earlier definition of Rogers
7 An interesting point is whether this information can be "hear-
say," or whether it must pass directly between an adopter and
a potential adopter. There appears to be no research on this topic.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
235
and Shoemaker, we propose to call this particular con-
struct "innate innovativeness," while what is observed
and measured as innovative behavior will be termed
"actualized innovativeness" (Midgley 1977, p. 107).
This distinction is crucial, for between innate and
actualized innovativeness lies a complex communica-
tion and influence process. While actualized innova-
tiveness can be validly measured by Equation (1) e.g.,
AI = (m - t)ls, it is incorrect to equate this to innate
innovativeness (II). In this conceptualization, innate
innovativeness is some inverse function of a threshold
amount of interpersonal information required by an
individual, that is,
II = f(I/E), (2)
where E is the quantum of communicated experience
required by the individual.
For any one innovation the relationship between in-
nate and actualized innovativeness might be expected
to be extremely intricate. To oversimplify a little, there
is absolutely no guarantee that some observed innova-
tors are not in fact innate later adopters (who received
the requisite information relatively quickly), and that
some observed later adopters are not innate innovators
(for situational or interest reasons). If we were to study
several innovations in a specific product category
(while controlling for product involvement/interest
using a standardized and strictly comparable meth-
odology), we would expect individuals with a high de-
gree of innate innovativeness to display high actualized
innovativeness on more occasions than other, less in-
novative, individuals. In other words, innate innova-
tors will be observed as actual innovators more fre-
quently because their adoption is essentially independ-
ent of the interpersonal communication network.
It should also be noted that individuals may evaluate
and reject the innovation. Therefore, 100 percent adop-
tion does not automatically follow the launch of a new
product. This raises problems, for it introduces yet
another intervening factor. Unfortunately, little guid-
ance exists in the literature because previous writers
have not reported on the market performance of the
products concerned. (We will return to this point sub-
sequently, particularly in the context of the problems
it poses for cross-sectional methodologies).
The innovativeness construct advanced here ties in
neatly with the the research demonstrating a connec-
tion between this variable and product category usage
rates, as documented by Robertson (1971) and more
recently Taylor (1977). This appears to hold both for
product categories and at the more generalized across-
category level (Robertson 1971, p. 101). If, for a variety
of exogenous (and yet to be determined) factors, an
individual is a heavy user of several product categories,
he is likely to be more experienced at decision making,
and therefore less reliant on the interpersonally com-
municated experiences of social contacts. However,
rather than devoting further space to the empirical sup-
 236 THE JOURNAL OF
FIGURE B
THE NEW MODEL OF INNOVATIVENESS
PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIOLOGICAL
TRAITS TRAITS
CONSTRUCT
FIELD
FIELD { ~ ~~~~INNATE INNOVATIVENESS 7
INTEREST IN PRODUCT CATEGORY
INTERVENING
VARIABLES COMMUNICATED EXPERIENCE
PHENOMENA SITUATIONAL EFFECTS
PLANE
REJECTION } OBSERVED
EF 3 } ~BEHAV IOR
OBEVD ACTUALIZED INNOVATIVENESS,
BEHAV IOR ADPTO
OBSEHAVIOE ie. RELATIVE TIME OF
port for this construct, it is perhaps more useful to
question whether this definition completely captures
our essential notions of innovativeness. This question
hinges on whether the degree to which an individual
makes innovation decisions independently of the com-
municated experience of others is a sufficient criterion
to discriminate innate innovators from the rest of the
population. There might be some individuals who do
not rely on communicated experience but have a lower
receptivity to new product ideas. Therefore, this defini-
tion may misclassify such individuals as innate
innovators.
Since it appears to be accepted that the early adopter,
early majority, and late majority are, to some degree,
reliant on interpersonal information (Rogers and Shoe-
maker 1971, p. 259), the only problem would appear
to be with the tails of the innovativeness distribution.
In other words, it is possible that innate laggards also
do not utilize interpersonal information sources, per-
haps because of their social isolation, and therefore,
might be misclassified as "innovators." There is some
evidence that this is not the case. For Iowa farmers,
Beal and Rogers (1960) indicated that the laggards
placed greater importance on interpersonal communi-
cation channels than other individuals. In the marketing
literature, only Uhl, Andrus, and Poulsen (1970) ap-
pear to have addressed this topic, finding for grocery
innovations that the laggards were exposed to inter-
personal information, but mainly from relatives rather
than outsiders.
We could, of course, posit a solution to this problem
by refining the definition of innovativeness: "innova-
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER RESEARCH
tiveness is the degree to which an individual is receptive
to new ideas and makes innovation decisions independ-
ently of the communicated experience of others."
However, given the preceding evidence, there seems
no pressing reason to make this added complication
at this point in time. Undoubtedly, our knowledge will
improve in the future, and with it the sophistication
of our construct. Here it is sufficient to propose that
future definitions should include the idea of an individ-
ual's degree of dependence on communicated experi-
ence. For this is the key to distinguishing between
those individuals who display low variance in their
relative times of adoption across several innovations
(high innovativeness by our definition), and those who
display high variance (low innovativeness). Nor does
the above problem impinge on the arguments advanced
here other than peripherally. For the moment we may
protect the given definition by adding the (hopefully
testable) assumption that high receptivity to new ideas
is correlated with a low dependence on communicated
experience, and proceed by discussing the model
shown in Figure B.
Some explanatory comments are in order for this dia-
gram. Under the heading "psychological traits," would
be included variables such as empathy, dogmatism,
achievement motivation, self-monitoring, intelligence,
etc. Under "sociological variables" would be included
such things as social participation, social integration,
cosmopolitism, social character, and so on. These theo-
retical constructs may have a relation not only to an
individual's innate innovativeness, but also to other
phenomena associated with the diffusion of an innova-
tion. For instance, an individual's susceptibility to in-
terpersonal messages may be governed by psychologi-
cal factors such as empathy, while the receipt of these
messages will be a function of their integration with
a social system.
As we move from the construct field into the realm
of observable (though not necessarily measurable) phe-
nomena, the first intervening variable is "interest in the
product category." This is included to indicate that
most individuals do not have all-encompassing inter-
ests or activities, especially with respect to the pur-
chase of goods or services. It is also to be expected
that interest would be dependent on psychological,
sociological, and demographic factors.8
The next intervening variable is "communicated ex-
perience," a shorthand way of denoting the network
of interpersonal messages relating to the product and
the effects of these messages on individuals. The essen-
tial points are that this network is unique to each innova-
tion, and that the receipt of these messages by any
one individual is in some way dependent on sociological
8 For the sake of simplicity, demographic variables have been
omitted from the diagram. These are obviously measurable and
have relationships, both with other observable phenomena and
with the various higher level constructs.
 INNOVATIVEN.ESS 237

factors. On the other hand, the effectiveness of inter- FIGURE C

personal information in changing an individual's behav- SIMPLIFIED TREE VERSION OF THE MODEL
ior relates to his innate innovativeness and possibly
to other psychological factors. I NNATE l IAT
LINNOVATOR l NNINNOVATOR
The third intervening variable, "situational effects,"
subsumes a variety of situation-specific and person-
specific factors.9 Among such factors are the situation
in which the individual discusses the new product,
whether he has sufficient financial resources, or per-
haps most important of all, whether he has a latent I NTER ESTED _ NOT _I NTERESiTED
IN INTERESTED IN
need for the particular innovation's perceived benefits. PRODUCT IN PRODUCT
CATEGORY PRODUCT CATEGORY
Last, we have that which can be directly observed-
adoption-and that which is in some ways unobserva-
ble-rejection.
A simplified version of this model is presented in the
alternative form of a tree diagram in Figure C. Here,
FAVORABLE NFAVORABLE FAVORAB
the other traits have been omitted, and the innate in- SIATUATBIONEXPERIENCE
SITUATION COMMUNICAT
EXPERIENCE EXPERIENCE
novativeness continuum arbitrarily dichotomised into RECEIVED RECEIVED
A I EARL IER I I LATER I I
innovator and noninnovator. While this is an oversim-
plification of reality, it serves to illustrate the relative
communication independence of the innate innovators
as opposed to the communication dependence of the
|FAVORABLE UNFAAVORABLE FrAVORABLE |
innate noninnovators. An interesting and crucial re- LSITUATION | |SITUATION | SITUATION |

search question yet to be answered is whether the nega-

tive branches of the tree, i.e., not interested, unfavor-
able communicated experience, unfavorable situation,
lead to outright rejection or to delayed adoption.
If we compare the conceptualization presented in EARLIER ADOPTION J LATER ADOPTION
Figures B and C with the major existing model of in-
novative behavior (Figure A), the deficiencies of the
reached this position, for in many ways it has similar-
latter become more clear. By conceptualizing and
ities with recent developments in oth?er areas of the be-
measuring innovativeness at the same low level of ab-
havioral sciences. Within psychology the stance of the
straction, some previous researchers have largely been
trait theorists (e.g., Cattell 1950; Guilford 1959) has
misled into understating the effects of the complex
been criticized by, among others, Mischel (1968),
causal chain between trait and behavior. Earlier it was
which led to the rise of "situationism," a theoretical
argued that innovativeness has implicitly been viewed
position derived from the Skinnerian model of man.
in the literature as a trait or persisting characteristic.
However, as noted by Bowers (1973), neither traits nor
Here, it has been demonstrated that relative time of
situations have been shown to account for much of the
adoption is not a persisting individual characteristic,
variance in observable human behavior. Bowers argues
and can, in fact, have a high variance over several
for theories which take into account the interaction
innovations.
between person and situation. More recently, Sarason,
Innovativeness and relative time of adoption are not
Smith, and Diener (1975) concluded that neither the
synonymous concepts. The former is a hypothetical
construct, while the latter is a low-level operational
person, the situation, nor the interaction between the
two accounted for a high percentage of the variance.
variable, and between the two lies a system of inter-
They suggest that:
vening variables. If we believe in the idea of a trait,
innovativeness, then it is desirable that we formulate the more theoretically relevant a personality or demo-
the higher-level construct. It should then be feasible graphic variable is to the situation to be manipulated and/
to explore the complex mechanism intervening be- or the behavior to be studied, the more variance will be
tween trait and behavior in a more meaningful fashion accounted for by the Person X Situation interaction.
(p. 203-204).
than is possible with the existing paradigm. Hopefully,
this will lead to the establishment of consistent em- Concurrently, Snyder and Monson (1975) argue that
pirical relationships between traits, intervening varia- some individuals are more likely to display cross-situa-
bles, and behavior. tional consistency than others. It, therefore, appears
It should not be surprising that the authors have unlikely that the simple interaction theory will remain
unchanged for long.
9 The order of presentation of the intervening variables is not While it is to be expected that the study of new
meant to imply a causal hierarchy. product adoption will undergo similar revolutions, it

This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 238 THE JOURNAL
FIGURE D
CONSTRUCTS, EFFECTS, AND MEASURES
EFFECTS INTERVENING BETWEEN
LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION CONSTRUCT AND RELATIVE TIME OF ADOPTION
AINTEREST IN PRODUCT CATEGORIESA
/ \ ~~~~~~COMMUNICATED EXPERIENCE/ \
HIGH SITUATIONAL FACTORS
/ GENERALIZED \ XROSS-~~~~~~~~~~~SECTIONAL
/ TRAIT \ / ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ACROSS \
,, INNOVATIVENESS \ / S~~~~~~~~~~~EVERAL CATEGORE
/ \ ~~~~~~~~COMUNICATED EXPERIENCE /\
INTERMEDIATE PRODUCT CATEGORY SITUATIONAL FACTORS CROSS-SECTIONAL
SPECIFIC WITHIN
/ INNOVATIVENESS \ RODUCT
/ \ SIT~~~~~~~~~~~~UATIONA /
/ \ FA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CTORS /
LOW
/SlrlGLE PRODUCT \ /RELATIVE TIME\
/ SPECIFIC INNOVATIVENESS \ /OF ADOPTI ON\
should be stressed that this phenomenon has an added
dimension, that of interpersonal communication and
influence. Having elucidated the nature of innovative-
ness and argued for a construct at a high level of ab-
straction, we now turn to ways of obtaining reliable
measures of this construct.
METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
It is clear that if the conceptualization just advanced
mirrors empirical reality, it has some profound meth-
odological implications. First and foremost, innate in-
novativeness should be closely related to other socio-
logical and psychological dimensions, thereby capable
of being identified and studied as a variable in its own
right. Second, actualized innovativeness can only
meaningfully be analyzed within the context of a com-
munications network and in relation to the inherent
stance individuals take toward new ideas and products.
A comparison between actualized innovativeness when
measured for two different new product introductions
makes very little sense unless we have a benchmark
for the two sets of individuals concerned, their innate
innovativeness, and some pictures of the flow of favor-
able and unfavorable information relating to both prod-
ucts. The observed adoption pattern cannot be disas-
sociated from the context of the concurrent communi-
cation processes.
Figure D provides a summary of the existing con-
structs and methodologies. The left-hand triangle rep-
resents the constructs at each of the three levels of
abstraction mentioned previously, while the central in-
verted triangle portrays those variables which inter-
vene between each of these constructs and overt be-
havior. In the right-hand triangle we have the main
measurement techniques associated with each con-
struct. At the base we have the relative time of adop-
tion measure associated with a low-level, product-
specific construct, while at the apex we have the
cross-sectional method applied across several product
categories. Since the latter measures relative time of
adoption for a large number of innovations, it is asso-
ciated with the highest-level construct postulated here
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
(innate innovativeness). In particular, it detects innate
innovators through their theoretically predicted lower
variance, i.e., their higher probability of being actual in-
novators. Given all our previous remarks, we will con-
centrate on the measurement of innate innovativeness
-first discussing existing techniques and then the pos-
sibilities for constructing new measures.
Within the theoretical framework advanced here,
only one of the existing methodologies would be viewed
SINGLE \
CATEGORIES
as a potentially valid and reliable measure of innate
innovativeness. This is the cross-sectional method ap-
plied across several product categories, an essentially
inferential route to identifying innate innovators. How-
ever, the previous theoretical discussions indicate that
to achieve this potential some modifications will be
required. First and foremost, it will be necessary to
have strictly comparable measurements of actualized
innovativeness, that is, it must be possible to place
all the sampled individuals into the adopter distribution
of each and every new product on the questionnaire
list. This can only be done post hoc after all the various
diffusion processes are substantially, completed and
only with detailed information on the market penetra-
tion of each product. Essentially, actualized innova-
tiveness must be measured in standardized form similar
toAI = (m - t)Is.
It will not be enough to present a list of new products
and ask respondents to indicate which they have al-
ready adopted. Such products would all be in different
stages of their respective life cycles and ownership (or
nonownership) of one may mean entirely the opposite
of ownership (or nonownership) of another. Nor in-
deed, can we know what ownership at that point in
time implies until the adoption of the product is com-
plete.
One practical alternative is to use whatever data are
available to forecast the adoption curve of each of the
products under consideration, say by a simple growth
curve model, thus, predicting individual actualized in-
novativeness in the (m - t)ls form. Second, there is
some evidence that the cross-sectional method does not
yield a unidimensional innovativeness scale (Rogers
and Rogers 1961, p. 334). To an extent this problem
may be resolved by the modification just mentioned,
but it may also be due to the fact that the researcher
will always be using a partial rather than complete list
of innovations and product categories. Whatever the
reason this question deserves research attention.
Thus, while this variant of the cross-sectional tech-
nique will probably yield a valid and reliable measure
of innate innovativeness, its application may be difficult
and resource consuming. In a practical sense, there
may be benefits to seeking a less inferential and more
direct measure of this variable. After all, it is not usual
to measure intelligence or dogmatism from "real-life"
instances of intelligent or dogmatic behavior, but rather
it is more normal to measure these traits via artificial
paper and pencil tests. However, before discussing the
latter possibility, we should mention the three other
 INNOVATIVENESS
methods mentioned in the literature: self-designation,
purchase intentions, and perceived innovation at-
tributes.
An example of the self-designation method is given
by Kohn and Jacoby (1973), who asked respondents
whether they were usually among the first to buy new
products. It might be considered that this method could
be used in the context of several product categories,
thereby yielding a measure of innate innovativeness,
since in some ways it can be likened to the cross-
sectional approach. However, there is a critical prob-
lem in extrapolating from a respondent's perception of
"usually among the first" to the theoretical require-
ment of accurately detecting early adoption of several
innovations in each product category. In our opinion
this does not appear to be a promising approach. The
purchase intentions method used with respect to prod-
uct categories would encounter similar problems, and
since we would be asking for predictions of future be-
havior rather than recall of past behavior, it would
seem even more suspect.
The perceived innovation attribute method has been
used by Ostlund (1974) in connection with two low-risk
innovations. This method relies on obtaining respond-
ents' perceptions of the new product before launch
along the dimensions of relative advantage, compati-
bility, complexity, observability, and trialability (Rogers
and Shoemaker 1971, p. 137), together with perceived
risk (Ostlund 1974, p. 24). Unfortunately, the technique
can only really be applied to specific new products,
and therefore, suffers from the defect that, theoretically
speaking, it measures a function of innovativeness, in-
terest, and situational factors-a requirement which
would impose severe practical limitations unless a suf-
ficiently wide and varied set of potential new products
can be used. If it could be shown that innate innovators
and innate noninnovators have different perceptions
of the world in general, a powerful measurement tech-
nique might be evolved. While the work of Ostlund
(1974) and Lambert (1972) is suggestive in this regard,
it is too early to make any definitive statement. It is
necessary to devise a study whereby innate innovators
and innate noninnovators are first differentiated by an
independent methodology, and then their perceptions
established.
Therefore, not only do the self-designation, purchase
intentions, and perceived innovation attributes meth-
ods pose difficult methodological problems, but also
none of these methods is consonant with the concept
of innate innovativeness advanced earlier. If innova-
tiveness is concerned with communication depend-
ence, then our measures should attempt to tap the es-
sential elements of this construct in a more straight-
forward manner than any of these (all three of which
would require the introduction of yet more intervening
variables). Of existing techniques the cross-sectional
method provides one valid measure of innate innova-
tiveness. To the authors, the only other promising al-
ternative is the formulation of a specific test or scale.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
239
We therefore turn to a brief discussion of how such a
direct measure might be achieved.
To formulate a direct measure of innate innovative-
ness would first require the identification of a set of
questionnaire items relating to the essential elements of
the construct, thought likely to discriminate between
innate innovators and innate noninnovators. Since in-
novativeness has been defined as "the degree to which
an individual makes innovation decisions independ-
ently of the communicated experience of others," these
elements are associated with an individual's decision-
making ability, independence, use of interpersonal
communication, relations with others, and so on. This
would lead to questionnaire items such as "I have dif-
ficulty in deciding whether or not to buy a new food
product," "I often talk with my friends about new
appliances," "I rely on my friends' advice when mak-
ing up my mind about new fashions," and so on.
These examples have been couched in terms of dif-
ferent product categories in order to indicate that we
would probably ask similar questions with respect to
several categories, thereby obtaining the breadth nec-
essary for a measure of innate innovativeness. In the
normal manner of constructing such measures, item
analysis would be used to reduce an initial battery of
50 or more items to the 20 or so which might constitute
a meaningful and practical scale. In the cross-sectional
technique, we have an invaluable aid to constructing a
direct scale. Specifically, the cross-sectional technique
provides an independent measure of innate innovative-
ness which may (a) assist in the selection of items, and
(b) serve in a test of the convergent validity of the
reduced item battery. If innate innovativeness is meas-
ured for the same respondents by both the cross-sec-
tional method and a large initial battery of direct items,
the item-cross-sectional correlations can be used to se-
lect the most useful items to include in the final scale.
Alternatively, the cross-sectional score may be used
as the dependent variable in a multiple regression
where each direct item forms an independent variable.
Again, the most significant items would be chosen,
but in this procedure we are also provided with an
optimal set of weights for the selected items-weights
which can be used to generate scores from future sam-
ples. Obviously, these regression weights maximize the
prediction of actual previous early adoption over a wide
variety of product categories by the direct-scale items.
In which case the direct innate-innovativeness score
can be expressed as:
n
11= E w1s1,
i=l
where II = the individual's innate-innovativeness
score,
n = the number of selected (significant) items,
wi = the regression weight attached to the ith
item, and
si = the individual's score on the ith item.
 240 THE JOURNAL OF
This has a superficial resemblance to the multi-attrib-
ute attitude model often employed in the marketing
literature (see Wilkie and Pessemier 1973) but is en-
tirely different in derivation and conception. Having
obtained a usable direct scale, a fresh sample would
be obtained, and the direct and cross-sectional meas-
ures generated again, except that on this occasion the
former would be achieved using the weights derived
from the first sample. The correlation between the two
measures would then provide some indication of con-
vergent validity, that is, "the degree to which two
attempts to measure the same concept through maxi-
mally different methods are convergent" (Zaltman,
Pinson, and Angelmar 1973, p. 44). Taking a fresh sam-
ple would also correct for the bias inherent in deriving
and testing regression equations on the same set of
respondents.
While the authors favor the construction of a direct
instrument as leading to a more practical measure for
many research situations, much remains to be done,
for instance, choosing those questions which are para-
digm instances of the construct and developing a valid
and reliable psychological scale. Apart from conver-
gent validity some other tests would be necessary to
establish the overall construct validity of these meas-
ures, namely, tests of discriminant and nomological
validity.
Discriminant validity is "the extent to which a con-
cept differs from other concepts" (Zaltman, Pinson,
and Angelmar 1973, p. 44). An appropriate test might
be the degree to which a pattern of interrelationships
between directly measured innovativeness and some
set of independent variables was similar to the pattern
depicted between cross-sectionally measured innova-
tiveness and these variables, and dissimilar to the pat-
terns depicted between the latter and other variables
such as self-confidence, social character, etc.
Nomological validity is perhaps the most important
requirement of all, in that it refers to the adequacy of
the theoretical framework, and in particular, to the
subsystem of laws, hypotheses, and assumptions which
relate the construct to observable behavior (Cronbach
and Meehl 1955). Given a measure of innate innovative-
ness (direct or cross-sectional) and measures of com-
munication and situational effects, we would attempt to
predict actualized innovativeness in its standardized
form and in the context of one, or more, specific in-
novations. The question of construct validity is a ques-
tion of the adequacy of our model of innovative be-
havior.
Arndt, J. (1967a), "The Role of Product-Related Conversa-
A CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATION
A simple hypothetical example will serve to sum-
marize the main argument of this paper. Suppose a pop- graph, New York.
ulation is normally distributed along the innate-innova- Bass, F. M. (1969), "A New Product Growth Model for
tiveness continuum, or along any other relevant trait for
that matter. For the purpose of the example, this con-
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER RESEARCH
tinuum is assumed to run from a value of six (high inno-
vativeness) to zero (low innovativeness), where the
population mean score is three. Then we have approxi-
mately 2.5 percent of the population with an innate-
innovativeness score between five and six, 13.5 percent
with a score between four and five, 34 percent between
three and four, and so on. Now we further postulate
that for a particular innovation the observed, or ac-
tualized, innovativeness score also takes some distribu-
tion along a similar scale from six to zero (though
not necessarily with the same shape or mean score).
The question posed is what would be the correlation
between trait (in this case innate innovativeness) and
behavior (in this case actualized innovativeness)? This
correlation is dependent on the process by which innate
innovativeness is transposed to actualized innovative-
ness. If we assume a direct one-to-one transfer, i.e., all
those with an innate score of six take an actualized
score of six, those with an innate score of five an ac-
tualized score of five, and so on, then we obviously
observe perfect correlation. However, if we assume
that the process is random, that is, those individuals
with any specific innate score are equally distributed
across the range of actualized innovativeness scores,
then the correlation is zero.
For the purposes of this example let us postulate that
reality is a mixture of these two processes, and that
for the innate innovators (defined as those with an in-
nate score between six and four) the transfer is direct,
but for the rest (those with scores between zero and
four) it is random. A simple calculation reveals that in
this case, the correlation between trait and behavior
would be in the order of 0.25.
Now, the authors would be the first to admit that this
example is simplistic and that several factors have been
ignored, factors which would tend to make the process
more complex. However, while we could go on adding
more realistic postulates, no doubt producing a range
of trait-behavior correlations, for our purposes here
these sophistications are not necessary, the main con-
clusion of the paper being clear. Without a model of the
processes intervening between trait and behavior we
are in no position to ascribe any meaning to empirical
correlations. Such a model is a vital stepping stone
to further progress in the field.
[Received June 1977. Revised November 1977.]
REFERENCES
tions in the Diffusion of a New Product," Journal of
Marketing Research, 4, 291-5.
(1967b), "Word of Mouth Advertising: A Review of
the Literature," Advertising Research Foundation Mono-
Consumer Durables," Management Science, 15, 215-
227.
 INNOVATIVENESS
Baumgarten, S. A. (1975), "The Innovative Communicator
in the Diffusion Process," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 12, 12-18.
Beal, G. M. and Rogers, E. M. (1960), "The Adoption of
Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Community,"
Special Report 26, Iowa Agricultural and Home Eco-
nomics Experimental Station, Ames, IA.
Bell, W. E. (1963), "Consumer Innovators: A Unique Market
for Newness," in Proceedings of the American Mar-
keting Association, ed. S. Greyser, Chicago: American
Marketing Association, 85-95.
Blake, B., Perloff, R., and Heslin, R. (1970), "Dogmatism
and Acceptance of New Products," Journal of Market-
ing Research, 7, 483-6.
Bowers, K. S. (1973), " Situationism in Psychology: An Anal-
ysis and a Critique," Psychological Review, 80, 307-
336.
Bruce, G. D. and Witt, R. E. (1970), "Personality Correlates
of Innovative Buying Behavior," Journal of Marketing
Research, 7, 259.
Bunge, M. (1967), Scientific Research I and II, Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Carnap, R. (1966), Philosophical Foundations of Physics,
New York: Basic Books.
Cattell, R. B. (1950), Personality: A Systematic Theoretical
and Factual Study, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Coney, K. A. (1972), "Dogmatism and Innovation: A Repli-
cation," Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 453-5.
Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. (1955), "Construct Valid-
ity in Psychological Tests," Psychological Bulletin 52,
281-302.
Darden, W. R. and Reynolds, F. D. (1974), "Backward Pro-
filing of Male Innovators," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 11, 75-88.
Day, G. S. (1974), "Attitude Change and the Relative In-
fluence of Media and Word-of-Mouth Sources," in
Models of Buyer Behavior ed. J. N. Sheth, New York:
Harper & Row.
Donnelly, J. H. and Ivancevich, J. M. (1974), "A Methodol-
ogy for Identifying Innovator Characteristics of New
Brand Purchases," Journal of Marketing Research, 11,
331-4.
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D. and Kegerreis, R. J. (1969),
"How Information is Used to Adopt an Innovation,"
Journal of Marketing, 33, 15-19.
, Blackwell, R. D. and Kollat, D. T. (1973), Consumer
Behavior New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
English, H. B. and English, A. C. (1958), A Comprehensive
Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms,
New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
Feldman, L. P. and Armstrong, G. M. (1975a), "Identifying
Buyers of a Major Automotive Innovation," Journal of
Marketing, 39, 54-62.
and Armstrong, G. M. (1975b), "A Reply to Peat,
Gentry, and Brown," Journal of Marketing, 39, 63-4.
Green, R. T., Langeard, E. and Favell, A. C. (1973), "Inno-
vation in the Service Sector: Some Empirical Findings,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 323-6.
Green, R. T. and Langeard, E. (1975), "A Cross-National
Comparison of Consumer Habits and Innovator Char-
acteristics," Journal of Marketing, 39, 34-41.
Guilford, J. P. (1959), Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
241
Haines, G. H. (1966), "A Study of Why People Purchase
New Products," in Proceedings of the American Mar-
keting Association, ed. R. N. Haas, Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
Jacoby, J. (1971), "Personality and Innovation Proneness,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 244-7.
Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955) Personal Influence,
New York: The Free Press.
King, C. W. and Sproles, G. B. (1973), "Predictive Efficacy
of Psychopersonality Characteristics in Fashion Change-
Agent Identification," in Proceedings of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Kohn, C. A., and Jacoby, J. (1973), "Operationally De-
fining the Consumer Innovator," in Proceedings of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Lambert, Z. V. (1972), "Perceptual Patterns, Information
Handling, and Innovativeness," Journal of Marketing
Research, 9, 427-31.
Margenau, H. (1935), "Methodology of Modern Physics,"
Philosophy of Science, 2, 48-72.
McGuire, W. J. (1969), "The Nature of Attitudes and Atti-
tude Change," in Handbook of Social Psychology 2nd
ed., eds. G. Lindzey, and E. Aronson, Boston: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co.
Mendez, A. (1968), "Social Structure and the Diffusion of
Innovation," Human Organization, 27, 241-9.
Midgley, D. F. (1976), "A Simple Mathematical Theory of
Innovative Behavior," The Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 3, 31-41.
(1977), Innovation and New Product Marketing, New
York: Halsted Press, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mischel, W. (1968), Personality and Asse?ssment, New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nelson, P. (1975), "The Economic Consequences of Ad-
vertising," Journal of Business, 48, 213-241.
Ostlund, L. E. (1972), "A Study of Innovativeness Over-
lap," Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 341-3.
(1973), "A Further Caution: It's Innovativeness
Overlap," Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 225-6.
(1974), "Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predic-
tors of Innovativeness," The Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 1, 23-29.
Peat, N. C., Gentry, J. W. and Brown, T. L. (1975), "A
Comment on 'Identifying Buyers of a Major Automotive
Innovation,' " Journal of Marketing, 39, 61-2.
Peterson, D. R. (1968), The Clinical Study of Social Behavior,
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Peterson, R. A. (1973), "A Note on Optimal Adopter
Category Determination," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 10, 325-9.
Pizam, A. (1972), "Psychological Characteristics of Inno-
vators," European Journal of Marketing, 6, 203-210.
Riesman, D., Glazer, N. and Denny, R. (1950), The Lonely
Crowd, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Robertson, T. S. (1968), "Purchase Sequence Responses:
Innovators vs. Non-Innovators," Journal of Advertising
Research, 8, 47-52.
(1971), Innovative Behavior and Communication,
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
and Myers, J. H. (1969), "Personality Correlates of
Opinion Leadership and Innovative Buying Behavior,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 164-8.
 242 THE JOURNAL OF
and Myers, J. H. (1970), "Personality Correlates of
Innovative Buying Behavior: A Reply," Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 7, 260.
and Kennedy, J. N. (1968), "Prediction of Con-
sumer Innovators: Application of Multiple Discriminant
Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 5, 64-9.
Rogers, E. M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovation, Glencoe, IL:
The Free Press.
(1976), "New Product Adoption and Diffusion," The
Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 290-301.
and Rogers, E. L. (1961), "A Methodological Analy-
sis of Adoption Scales," Rural Sociology, 26, 326-31.
and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971), Communication of
Innovations, New York: The Free Press.
Rozeboom, W. W. (1966), Foundations of the Theory of
Prediction, Homewood Il: Dorsey Press.
Sarason, I. G., Smith, R. E., and Diener, E. (1975), "Per-
sonality Research: Components of Variance Attrib-
utable to the Person and the Situation," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 199-204.
Sheth, J. N. (1971), "Word-of-Mouth in Low-Risk Innova-
tions," Journal of Advertising Research, 11, 15-18.
Summers, J. 0. (1971), "Generalized Change Agents and In-
novativeness," Journal of Marketing Research, 8,
313-6.
This content downloaded from 14.139.157.21 on Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER RESEARCH
(1972), "Media Exposure Patterns of Consumer Inno-
vators," Journal of Marketing, 36, 43-9.
Synder, M. (1974), "The Self-Monitoring of Expressive
Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 30, 526-537.
and Monson, T. C. (1975), "Persons, Situations, and
the Control of Social Behavior," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32, 637-44.
Tatham, R. L., and Dornoff, R. J. (1973), "A Cautionary
Note on Innovative Overlap," Journal of Marketing
Research, 10, 224-5.
Taylor, J. W. (1977), "A Striking Characteristic of Innova-
tors," Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 104-107.
Uhl, K., Andrus, R. and Poulsen, L. (1970), "How are
Laggards Different? An Empirical Inquiry," Journal of
Marketing Research, 7, 51-4.
Whyte, W. H., (1954), "The Web of Word-of-Mouth,"
Fortune, November, 140.
Wilkie, W. L. and Pessemier, E. A. (1973), "Issues in
Marketing's Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 428-41.
Wolman, B. B. (1973), Dictionary of Behavioral Science,
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Zaltman, G., Pinson, R. A., and Angelmar, R. (1973),
Metatheory and Consumer Research, New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.