Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465

International Economic Conference of Sibiu 2013 Post Crisis Economy: Challenges and
Opportunities, IECS 2013

The Consumer Resistance Behavior towards Innovation

Viorel Cornescua*, Cecilia-Roxana Adamb
a
omania
b
National Institute of Economic Research, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to identify and analyze consumer resistance in order to understand this concept in the area of resistant
behavior. The paper converges on studying the resistance to innovation from a theoretical perspective and to show it importance
in innovation process. The paper concludes bydescribing the complexity of resistance to innovation, its forms and effects on the
behavior of consumers and market. Although most authors focus their research on positive adoption decisions, this paper instead
focus on developing insight into the relatively underdeveloped area of resistant behavior literature by presenting key concepts of
resistance to innovation.
© 2013
© 2013 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Publishedby
byElsevier
ElsevierB.V.
B.V.Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and
Selection and peer-review
peer-reviewunder
underresponsibility
responsibilityofofFaculty
FacultyofofEconomic
EconomicSciences,
Sciences,Lucian
LucianBlaga
BlagaUniversity
Universityofof Sibiu.
Sibiu.

Keywords: innovation; resistance to innovation; consumer behavior.

1. Introduction:

Resistance to innovation is a new concept appeared and, for the moment, has been rather difficult to define. A
loose definition for consumer resistance to innovation would be that it represents the negative reaction toward
innovation because of its potential changes made to a satisfactory status quo or because it is in conflict with their
belief structure (Ram &Shet, 1989).Therefore, we can say that resistance to innovation is how consumers react to
new or improved products come onto the market, whatever they may be.

*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cornescuviorel@yahoo.com

2212-5671 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Economic Sciences, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu.
doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(13)00163-9
458 Viorel Cornescu and Cecilia-Roxana Adam / Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465

Consumer response to innovation can be for or against. In fact, the final choice of the consumer, regarding the
adoption innovation, can also be for or against. Inaddition, consumers may choose to adopt or resist to an
innovation. We consider that both, adoption and resistance are actually the results of the resistance exert by the
consumer when facedwith innovation.
Adoption and resistance are known as the two ends of a continuum of reactions to the innovation (Lapointe et al.,
2002). The adoption has been described as a result of overcoming resistance (Szmigin&Foxall, 1998), meaning the
pro innovation result,by contrast the result against innovationis represented by the persistence of resistance, leading
to the disappearance of innovation, but not ofthe invention.
In this paper we present a briefanalysis of resistance to innovation, from a theoretical perspective, watching how
it should be defined, its importance in the current economy and on individual behavior, how it can manifest and the
common factors believed to affect resistance to innovation.

1.1. The literature review

The studies on resistance to innovationare relatively few in number and therefore JN Sheth (1981,
f innovation adoption.
This has been because in innovation research there seemsthefundamental concept thatinnovation is good.
Since 1960, when Everett Rogers made his first research on diffusion of innovation, there has been an explosive
growth in the research of innovation process, despite this, from 26 300 articles about innovation, only 26 of them
mention the unintended consequences of innovation, and 19 can be classified as empirical studies. (Lapointeet al,
2002)
The authors have shown a low interest for this theme because the unpredictable consequences of innovation are
too complex, the research is too difficult and there are no reliable methods in the field (Sveiby et al, 2002). Rogers
(1983) talks about pro-innovation orientation among researchers, thatthey have only a generally basic, pro-
innovation attitude, and based on the idea that the positive consequences of innovation outweigh the negative ones,
resistance to innovation requires less research attention.
Establishing the real level of resistance to innovation is difficult due to theits subjective nature. However, to
asses the actual degree of resistance to an innovation it is more than necessary to construct a complex image close to
the real barriers, performed by the consumers, to the adoption of innovation process.
We can say that resistance to innovation is a complex process,which require a long study time and high cost, but
at the same time, understanding this processmay be vital to an organization.

1.2. Resistance to change

If we take in consideration the large number of new products which appear on the market annually, contemporary
economy seems to be characterized by continuous innovation and the light manner in which consumers accept new
products. This feature may have been true in the early stages of the industrialization process. (Codeluppi,
2000);however, since mass production is dominating, the economy is characterized by a multitude of new products
launched on the market, of which almost 90% of them do not survive on the market, according to studies made by C.
Merle Crawford (2008).Although the results ofmarket researches done by organizations, regarding a new product
launch, are favorable, the reality is different.
The production and marketing phase do not depend exclusively on the organization;the important actor in this
relationship is the future consumer. Therefore, the consumer mayaccept or refuse the new product. From
theconsumerspoint of view, the new product represents the change that he faces, and, if the product is deemed
satisfactory, he will accept the change, but if it doesn't fit to his requirements or modifies the status with which he is
accustomed, the consumer will exert resistance to this change.Resistance to change occurs when consumers perceive
the risks of changes being greater than its benefits.
The relationship between innovation and consumption is complex; not all innovations, that organizations tend to
sell, are interpreted by the consumers as beneficial changes. In other words, the innovations, promoted by the
organization, are perceived by consumer as changes to hismode of life. Themanifestation of the aforementioned
resistance is perceived by the organization as a resistance to innovationwhich must be overcome. One important
 Viorel Cornescu and Cecilia-Roxana Adam / Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465 459

aspect of resistance to innovation is the resistance imposed by innovation changes (eg: changes in consumption or
product) and is called resistance to change (Gati

In defining the concept of resistance to innovation it is important to distinguish the difference between invention
and innovation, commercialization process. Innovation is a product, process or service,either with unprecedented
performance characteristics or familiar characteristics that offer significant improvements in performance or
cost,which transforms the existing markets or create new ones. (Assink, 2006, p. 215) Innovation regarded as

existing systems of production and

by the fully novel, idea, object or unprecedented service, whichmay create a new market or produce major changes
in the existing one.
Petty (1679, p. 53)speaks about skepticism and doubt, so when there are proposed new radically
technologicalideas, a normal reaction is that they will not work because otherwise we have been thought about it
first.(Mokyr, 1997, p.2)
Most often the adoption of a radical innovations, for example in the technological field, is the subject of a long
debate, whereas the economists have paid little attention to the role of persuasion and rhetoric in decision making,
they have failed to understand, for example, why some economists accepted nuclear power and others do not.
(Mokyr, 1997)

improved components because it does not fit with the whole operation, for example, we cannot adopt a new
operating system if your computer cannot run it.
In reality, what matters is not the competence (price) instead the new products competition, new technologies,
mpeter, 1949, p.
84)Therefore, resistance to change may be interpreted as a defense mechanism against the possible chaotic
consequences of traditional society failure.
It is not always possible to know exactly how important could have been the effects and the amount of teaching
within may have contribute the innovations, that were never mass produced. Would have aircraft became faster and
safer, if the aviation world would have not switched to fixed wing aircraft in interwar period? (Mokyr, 1997)
Studying the resistance to innovation is very important for the organization, it helps to design and develop new
products in order to ensure market success and to reduce the high rate of failure of the new products launched in the
market.
Once the organizations fa
the causes that underlie the resistance and they can be able to design better strategies to face the criticism and the
important factors of resistance. (Ram, 1987, p. 209)
Even if the innovative product can bring great benefits and improved functionality, researchers found that
consumers convey a less enthusiastic response to a number of new products (Blackler& Brown, 19985, p.215). This
response is not the expected one (Heiskanen et al., 2007) and is usually expressed in a series of forms, and is called

manifested by innovation consumers because possesses potential to change to a status quo satisfactory or because it

Consumer resistance plays an important role in the success of an innovation, can certainly inhibit or delay the
consumer adoption. It was considerate as one of the main causes of innovations failure on the market (Ram &Shet,
1989) and it is also a valuable source of vital information for the successful innovations implementation and
commercialization (O'Connor & Rice, 2001, p.99).If the resistance cannot be overcome, the adoption process slows
down and the innovation will probably fail. (Ram, 1989)
Organizations need to understand consumer resistance and the factors that cause it, in order to become more
efficient in their improvement efforts and to identify the competitiveness, productivity and profitability
(Herbig&Dunphy, 1995). Despite the company's efforts to guide the development processes of innovation toward
consumers need, focused on delivering value, (Danneels, 2003) most companies face high rates of innovation
failures (Garcia &Atkin, 2002).
460 Viorel Cornescu and Cecilia-Roxana Adam / Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465

The reasons for the emergence of this resistance differ, there is not enough research on the subject in order to
determinethem accurately, but there are various examples of innovations which encounter resistance. For example,
consumers object from the moral point of view against genetically modified food and they are active in campaigns
against the introduction of these innovations. (Bredhal, 2003)Other examples also appear in the case of simple
innovations,such as, wine enthusiasts, refuse to accept screw cap as a replacement for traditional cork lid of the
bottle of wine (Garcia &Atkin, 2002).
Lennon and his collaborators (2007)have shown that numerous studies explore the factors which contribute to

adoption (Midgley& Dowling, 1993, p. 614). At the same time, the fundamental research of innovation (Rogers,
1995), has always recognized in a tacit way the importance of resistance to innovation, the empirical research in this
area, compared to the adoption process research has been less active in investigating the nature and determinants of
resistance. The cases in which the difference between adoption and innovation resistances it is clearly studied are
rare, resistance is often assumed as the mere refusal to adoption of innovation. However, it is not appropriate to
conclude that consumer resistance is simply the obverse of the adoption process.(Gatignon, 1989)
The innovation adoption could create a big change in consumer life, removing him from the daily routine and his
habits. The failure rate of new products which appearon the market is high, for every 4 developed projects just one
succeeds on the market and, at the launch stage, at least one of 3 products it fails despite the results of research and
planning (Cooper, 1990, p.9).

3.000 Raw Ideas

100 exploratory projects

10 well-developed projects

2 full-fledged product launches

1 successful product

Fig. 1: 3000 Raw ideas = 1 Commercial Success

Source: Stevens G.A. and Burkey, J., (May/ June 1997) Research Technology Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 16-27.

As we have seen in the abovefigure, from 3000 raw ideasjust only one product issuccessful; this is another
research study that shows the importance of studying the resistance to innovation and the determination factors
thatleads to the emergence of resistance.

2. 1. Factors that influence resistance to innovation

In the previous part, we showed that despite the positive results of research and planning the launch of an
innovative product, the innovation resistance can occur even leading to product rejection, in some cases, due to
consumer decisions that are not always rational choices. To determine resistance, it is important to know the factors
that lead to it in order to reduce the risk perceived by the consumer.
 Viorel Cornescu and Cecilia-Roxana Adam / Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465 461

Over time, several models have been developed of resistance to innovation. According to Ram's (1989) model,
resistance to innovation can be regarded depending on three factors: perception of innovation characteristics,
consumer characteristics and mechanisms of propagation, where each set is composed of detailed factors. Ram's
model of resistance to innovation is a useful tool for studying resistance to innovation and has been used most
frequently to evaluate consumer resistance to various innovations (Gatignon& Robertson 1989).

f innovation rather
from a social perspective, than a source of resistance to innovation (Khan &Hyunwoo, 2009).They argued that
consumer resistance to innovation is generated by innovation characteristics and consumer characteristics, while
propagation mechanism does not generate consumer resistance to innovation, but rather plays a role in innovation
diffusion barrier, from a social perspective.
In 1998, Robert W. argues that we need to identify and understand which factors have the most influence on
consumer resistance to innovated products. It is important to study the effects of important factors of consumer
resistance, which will reveal the importance of each factor, intensity of work and the relationships between them. On
the other hand, understanding the key factors of consumers and innovation characteristics that affect consumer
resistance is crucial for the organization team projects to increase the chances of correct making decisions amongthe
design and development efforts. (Veryzer, 1998)
Factors which are leading to consumer resistance can be divided into two main categories.
1. Innovations which require a change in the already established behavioral patterns of consumers, norms,
customs and traditions which they could resist.
2. The innovation that in a certain way causes a conflict or a problem to consumer psychological level, it is

of consumers, for example, how they see the innovation process of a product (Herbig, &Dunphy,1995).

completed the model by dividingthe factors which are leading to consumer resistance (see Figure 2) as follows:
perception of innovation characteristics, consumer characteristics, the propagation mechanisms and the influence of
opinion leaders.We consider that it is inappropriate to exclude the characteristics of the propagation mechanisms
when we speak
model and, bysupplementing it with the influence of opinion leaders, we intend to create a complex model able to
cover the important factors that affect the resistance to innovation.
Innovation The perception of Propagation The influence of
characteristics: innovation Mechanisms: opinion leaders:
-perception, characteristics: - market type; - advices,
-motivation, -relative advantage, -characteristics of - information
-personality, - compatibility, propagation about new products.
-the degree of - perceived risk, mechanisms:
value-oriented, - complexity, credibility, clarity,
-beliefs, - expectation of better source similarity,
-attitudes, products. informativeness.
- experience of
previous
i i

Resistance

Fig. 2: The determining factors of consumer resistance

462 Viorel Cornescu and Cecilia-Roxana Adam / Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465

In the resistance to innovation model presented above, the perception of innovation characteristics consists of:
relative advantage, compatibility, perceived risk, complexity and expectation of better products. Consumer
characteristics are psychological variables: perception, motivation, personality, the degree to which the consumer is
value-oriented, beliefs, attitudes and experience of previous innovations. The characteristics of propagation
mechanisms witch can influence the resistance to innovation,are developing according to the nature of the market,
according to where the innovation will be launched and within the propagation channel characteristics: credibility,
clarity, similar data source information. The influence of opinion leaders, individuals or organized groups which are
giving advice and information about new products and may influence attitudes or behavior, of others who can act, in
the interest of the group with whom consumers identify, depending on the interests and foundations that they
represent and support or may act in the opposite direction, by manipulation common interests of group
memberships, when it pursues a self-interest, when the innovation does not contradict the group foundation but its
acceptance would cause economic inconvenience or would affect their credibility.
In the 40's, Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross (1943) conducted a study on the new type of hybrid corn spread among
Iowa farmers. This study showed that people who have adopted the innovation first belong to a social elite
characterized by greater orientation towards cosmopolitanism and a higher socioeconomic level, and that they were
mainly influenced by interpersonal communication. Starting from this example, we note that the role of opinion
leaders may be essential and can influence overall the society rate of resistance to innovation.
The influence of opinion leaders in adopting innovation has been studied and demonstrated by other authors, such
as Arndt's (1967) study that showed that housewives tend to reduce the perceived risk in adopting a fundamentally
new product by counseling with leaders present in their circle of neighbors.
Opinion leaders were defined as individuals who give advice and information about new products and influence
the attitudes and behavior of other individuals (Rogers, 1995).
causes behavioral changes
(Valente, 1995) and as people who are related to a relatively large number of different social networks
(Venkatraman, 1989). The opinion leaders or affiliation and reference groups can influence consumer decisions,
because they are part of the opinion makers together with decision makers and influencing factor.Furthermore ,they
are having an important role in filtering information, orientation perception and consumer attitude formation.
Interpersonal influence is not only a feature of diffusion mechanism, opinion leaders based on past experience or
if the innovation contravenes to the common goal of affiliation groupwithinconsumer identifies with, can influence
the consumer's decision by increasing or decreasing their resilience. The consumer sees the solution of current
problems based not only on personal experience of earlier innovations but also based on current innovations testing
of the individuals with whom they identify. Therefore, if the innovation contravenes to the purpose of group

A tactic that may influence consumer decisions towards an innovation is mobilizing the affiliation group against
it, by defending a cause or a basic characteristic of the group with which innovation is in contradictory. For
example, an exclusive creation of new models of snakeskin shoes for ladies, contravenes to the group of women
who support animal rights, and no matter how comfortable and pleasant can be such a shoes, a manifesto of the
group can increase the rate of resistance.
We consider that the perception of innovation characteristics, consumer characteristics, the propagation
mechanisms characteristics and the influence of opinion leaders are the most important factorswhich are leading
consumers to resistance, because his decisions are not completely rational and the consumers decisionscan be
influenced by these factors.

2.1. The manifestation of resistance to innovation

The resistance to innovation leads the consumer toresponde in three forms; it may take the form of direct
rejection, postponement or opposition. Based on studies derived from Mirella (2009),Szmigin&Foxall (1998), we
present the results of consumer resistance to innovation, concept manifestation, as shown in Figure 3:
 Viorel Cornescu and Cecilia-Roxana Adam / Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465 463

POSTPONEMENT

INNOVATION RESISTANCE OPPOSITION

REJECTION

Fig. 3:

Source: Derived from Mirella (2009) andSzmigin&Foxall (1998) studies

Postponing the decision refers to pushing forward the adoption of an innovation (Kuisma et al, 2007). It is an
active decision to not adopt an innovation at some point despite the fact that the innovation seems acceptable to the
consumer. Postponing is usually caused by situational factors, such as timing, acquire necessary knowledge or
ensure that the product works effectively. Consumers can escape from the dilemma of adoption vs. resistance by
postponing the decision (Nabih et all, 1997). The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and technology
acceptance model (Davis, 1989) refers to consumer indecision, meaning that consumers' most of the time will seek
to process the information until the perception of opportunity and/or threat is subjectively targeted to satisfaction
(Mirella et al, 2009).
After a certain period of time, the postponing can take the form of acceptance or rejection. Some of the
circumstances in which consumers prefer to postpone the decision regarding the innovation are: when the consumer
may not be able to afford the adoption of innovations from financial standpoint, or why should he pay for a product
when he may have it for free (for example a newspaper) or due to other concerns, such as, when the consumer
less
profitable.
Opposition is defined as an effective behavior actively directed in anopposing way to the introduction of
innovations (Mirella et al, 2009) and it refers to the protest towards innovation or to search additional information
about the process (Kuisma et al, 2007). It is the period in which the consumer tends to reject the innovation but is
willing to test or verify the innovation before its final rejection. Opposition causes vary and can be many, such as
resistance induced by habits, situat
innovations (Mirella et al, 2009). Gatignon and Robertson (1989) emphasize that the consumer has a variety of
tions) and loyalty (continued patronage in hope of
change).

mouth to mouth, online activities and protests against the introduction of an innovation. In 1999, Further Coatsee

behavior has
The most important characteristic of opposition is that itmay lead consumers to seek appropriate information
which can cause them to jump straight to acceptance. On the other hand, consumers might reject an innovation
based on the existing awareness related to innovation, when they realized that it is not appropriate for them
(Szmigin&Foxall, 1998).
Consumers can directly reject an innovation; this is the most extreme form of resistance. The rejection is an
active decision to not at all take up an innovation (Kleijnen et al. 2009). The closest definition to the one given by

p.177).In conclusion, rejection occurs when individuals decides that will not use the innovation, therefore, they
actively rejects the innovation.
464 Viorel Cornescu and Cecilia-Roxana Adam / Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465

3. Conclusions:

Through this paper we wanted to point out that resistance to innovation is notthe opposed concept of the adoption
process, in fact innovation adoption is the result of exceeding the resistant behaviour. As we have seen it is not
important to know just the consumers or what are the attributes of the innovative products, for an organisationit is
also very important to know which are those factors, that may cause a resistance to innovation in consumer
behavior.
In this paper we have illustrate the importance of studying consumer resistance to innovation, which is one of the
main cause of the new product failure on the market. We have defined and analyze the concept of resistance to
innovation, we have shown which are the factors that may influence resistance to innovation by dividing them into
four categories: perception of innovation characteristics, consumer characteristics, characteristics of the propagation
mechanisms and influence opinion leaders.
Summing up, the consumer may manifest resistance by postponing the adoption of innovation, opposing it or by
decision, however, knowing which
factors have determinate the resistant behavior, may act accordingly to modify those factors and to turn them in its
favor.
In conclusion, resistance to innovation is an important concept in our economy and studying the factors which
determine the resistant behavior leads us to understand better the consumer attitude towards innovation.

References :

Arndt, J. (1967) Role of product- related conversations in the diffusion of a new product,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, No. 3., p. 291-
295.
Assink, M. (2006) The inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model,.European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9,
No.2, p. 215-233.
Blackler, F., & Brown, C, (1985), Evaluation and the impact of information technologies on people in organizations, Human Relations, Vol.
38,No. 3, p.213 - 231 .
Bredahl, L. (2001), Determinants Of Consumers Attitudes And Purchase Intentions With Regards ToGenetically Modified Foods Results Of A
Cross-National Survey, Journal of Consumer Policy, No. 24, p. 23-61.

Cooper R.G. (1990) Winning at New Products, Accelerating the process from idea to launch, 2nd edition, Perseus, p. 9.
Crawford, C. M. & Di Benedetto A.(2008)New products management, ,Edition -IX, New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Czepiel, John A (1974) Word-of-Mouth Processes in the Diffusion of a Major Technological Innovation, Journal of Marketing Research, No. 11,
May, p. 172-180.
Danneels, E. (2003) Tight-loose coupling with customers: The enactment of customer orientation,Strategic Management Journal, No. 24, p. 559
576.
Ellen, P.S.; Wiener, J.L. & Cobb-Walgren, C (1991) The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious
behaviours, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, October, p. 102-117.
Ellen,P.S.; Bearden,W. O. &Sharma,S. (1991) Resistance to technological innovations: an experimental examination of the role of self-efficacy
and performance satisfaction,Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, No. 19, April, p. 297 307.
Fortin, D. R., & Renton, M. S. (2003) Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods in New Zealand, British Food Journal, No. 105, p.
42 58.
Marketing,
Nr. 53, January, p. 35-49.
Garcia, R. &Atkin, T. (2002) Coo-petition for the diffusion of resistant innovations: A case study in the global wine industry, Institute for Global
Innovation Management Working Paper, May, pa. 1 22.
Heiskanen, E.;Hodson, M.; Raven, R.;Feenstra, Y. et all (2007) Factors influencing the societal acceptance of new energy technologies: meta-
analysis of recent European projects, Work Package 2 report of the Create Acceptance Project.
Herbig, P. &Dunphy, S. (1995) Acceptance of Innovation: The Customer is the Key, The Journal of High Technology Management Research,
No. 6, February, p. 193-209.
Khan K. &Hyunwoo K. (1992) Factors affectingconsumer resistance to innovation, Jonkoping International Business School, May.
Lapointe, L., Lamothe, L. & Fortin, J. (2002) The dynamics of IT adoption in a major change process in healthcare delivery, System Sciences,
HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, p. 918-926.
Lennon, S. J.; Kim, M.; Johnson, K. K. P.; Jolly, L. D.; Damhorst, M. L. & Jasper, C. R (2007) A longitudinal look at rural consumer adoption of
online shopping, Psychology & Marketing, No. 24, April, p. 375 401.
 Viorel Cornescu and Cecilia-Roxana Adam / Procedia Economics and Finance 6 (2013) 457 – 465 465

Midgley, D. F. & Dowling, G. R. (1993) A longitudinal study of product form innovation: The interaction between predispositions and social
messages, Journal of Consumer Research, No. 19, p. 611 625.
MirellaKleijnen; Nick Lee & Martin Wetzels (2009) An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents, Journal of
Economic Psychology, No. 30, p.344 357.
Mokyr J (1997) The Political Economy of Technological Change: Resistance and Innovation in Economic History,Department of Economics
Northwestern University,March, p. 2.
Molesworth, M.&Suortti, J.-P. (2002) Buying cars online: The adoption of the web for high-involvement, high cost purchases, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, February, p.155 168.

O'Connor, G. C. & M. P. (2001) Opportunity Recognition and Breakthrough Innovation in Large Established Firms, California Management
Review, No. 43, February, p.95-116.
Petty W (1679) A Treatise of Taxes and Contributions, London: Obadiah Blagrave, p. 53.
Ram, S. &Sheth, N.J. (1989) Consumer resistance to innovation: The marketing problem and its solution, The Journal of Comer Marketing,
February, p. 5-14.
Ram, S. (1987) A Model of Innovation Resistance,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, p.208 212.
Ram, S. (1989) Successful Innovation Using Strategies to Reduce Consumer Resistance: An Empirical Test,Journal of Product Innovation
Management, No. 6, p. 20-34.
Robertson. Thomas S. (1971) Innovative Behavior and Communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Rogers, E. (1983)Diffusion of Innovations,3rd edition, New York, NY: The Free Press.
Ryan B. & Gross N.C (1943) The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities, Rural Sociology.
Schumpeter , J. A (1949) Economic theory and entreptreneurial history, Change and the entrepreneur, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
p. 84.
Sheth, N.J. (1981)Psychology of Innovation Resistance: The Less Developed Concept (LDC) in Diffusion Research, Research in Marketing, JAI
Press (Greenwich, CT), p. 273-282.
Song, M. X.& Montoya-
Innovation Management, No. 15, p.124-135.
Sveiby Karl-Erik; GripenbergPernilla; SegercrantzBeata; Eriksson Andreas &Aminoff Alexander (2009)Unintended and Undesirable
Consequences of Innovation , p. 8.
Szmigin, I. &Foxall, G. (1998) Three forms of innovation resistance: The case of retail payment methods, Technovation, No. 18, p. 459-468.
Valente T.W. (1995) Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations, Hampton Press, New Jersey.
Sci., No. 566 , p.
55 67.
Venkatraman M.P. (1989) Opinion leaders, adopters, and communicative adopters: a role analysis, Psychology and Marketing., No. 6, January,
p. 51 68.
Veryzer, Robert W (1998) Discontinuous Innovation and the New Product Development Process,Journal of Product Innovation Management,
No. 15, p. 304-321.