Journal of Business Research 88 (2018) 337–343

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Factors affecting late adoption of digital innovations☆ T

a,⁎ b
Sara F. Jahanmir , Joana Cavadas
a
Neoma Business School, 1, rue du Maréchal Juin - BP 215, 76130 Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
b
CITTA, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite extensive research on diffusion and adoption of innovations, late adoption of digitized products has
Diffusion of innovations received little attention. This study explores the determinants of late adoption of digital innovations and selects
Adoption of innovations five variables: a) attitude toward a technology, b) negative word of mouth about the technology, c) global brand
Digital innovations image, d) consumer innovativeness, and e) lead-user profile.The results of a binary logistic regression with late
Late adoption
adopter as the target variable show that with exception of negative word of mouth, all the variables have a
Resistance to innovation
negative effect on the probability of moving on the adoption scale from late to early adopter. Furthermore,
Lag user
increasing the positive attitude of consumers toward a technology (i.e. reducing consumers' skepticism) could be
more effective to accelerate the rate of adoption than projecting the global image of the company. Understanding
the determinants of late adoption will allow companies to develop technologies that diffuse faster and will help
them to follow NPD, marketing, and sales strategies, which could accelerate the rate of adoption of digital
innovations.

1. Introduction: Diffusion of digital innovations
Diffusion of innovation is the process of acceptance of an innovation
over time among members of a social system (Rogers, 1962). Firms' new
product development practices aim at developing innovations that
diffuse at a higher pace, in order to ensure larger market shares and
high profits. However, despite such efforts, a significant percentage of
customers are late adopters. As technologies spread faster and product
life cycles get shorter, late adopters are becoming a larger and more
influential consumer group (Wells, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). As regards
adoption of technological innovations, Rogers (1962) considers that
16% of the customers are laggards and 34% are the late majority.
Following the literature, this study refers to late adopters as the sum of
these two adopter categories: late majority and laggards (Jahanmir &
Lages, 2016). Thus, late adopters represent half of the potential adop-
ters of any product, service, or technology.
Scholarly definitions of late adopters indicate that, compared to
other users, they are slower to adopt a product, show higher levels of
resistance to innovations, and are more sceptical toward new products.
They purchase products when they are mature and prices are lower.
They prefer simple products and are more interested in products'
functionality rather than in design and brand (Jahanmir & Lages,
2016). Additionally, they have a negative attitude toward dis-
continuous innovations, are past-oriented, and have traditional values.
They adopt an innovation only after the majority of users have already
adopted as a “safety” measure. They lack opinion leadership in the
diffusion process; therefore, their adoption relies widely on other users'
opinions about technologies. Being resistant and critical users, their
contribution to diffusion and adoption of technologies is often through
negative word of mouth (Moore, 2014; Rogers, 1962).
Adoption of digital technologies is radically changing the nature of
today's products and services. Yoo, Boland Jr, Lyytinen, and Majchrzak
(2012) refer to digital innovations as the incorporation of digital cap-
abilities into previously purely physical material. They define digital
materiality as “what the software incorporated into an artifact can do
by manipulating digital representations” (Yoo et al., 2012, p. 1398).
They propose the example of running shoes. Standard shoes have
merely physical materiality. They cannot carry any meaning or connote
any sense of time and place. Running shoes with embedded microchips
have digital materiality. They can record movements and transfer that
information adding the elements of time and place (Yoo et al., 2012).
The digital materiality enabled by digital innovations offers firms
new opportunities to create unique experiences. Our era is one of rapid
digital transformation, with digital technologies quickly dominating

☆
The authors thank Professor Luis Filipe Lages, Nova School of Business and Economics (Lisbon, Portugal) and Professor Robert Defillippi, Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University
(Boston, USA) for their careful reading and suggestions. Part of this research was conducted while Sara Jahanmir was a Research Fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Joana
Cavadas acknowledges her Doctoral Grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/52359/2013).
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sara.jahanmir@neoma-bs.fr (S.F. Jahanmir), joana.cavadas@uc.pt (J. Cavadas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.058
Received 20 June 2017; Received in revised form 19 January 2018; Accepted 25 January 2018
Available online 13 February 2018
0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S.F. Jahanmir, J. Cavadas
products, services, and operations of organizations (Yoo et al., 2012).
This transformation alters customers' perceptions of product or service
innovations. With technologies' life cycle becoming shorter and pro-
ducts diffusing faster, firms turn to digital technologies to achieve their
business goals. Scholars have illustrated that digital technologies enable
firms to explore a vast potential for product and service innovations,
which are particularly rapid and difficult to control and predict
(Henfridsson, Mathiassen, & Svahn, 2014; Nylén & Holmström, 2015;
Yoo et al., 2012; Yoo, Lyytinen, Boland Jr., & Berente, 2010). Ad-
ditionally, scholars have pointed out difficulties in evaluating the value
digital innovations generate (Grover & Kohli, 2012). To manage new
types of digital innovations that emerge in this highly dynamic and
unpredictable environment, firms need to understand deeply the dif-
fusion of such innovations in order to make informed decisions.
Nowadays, digital innovations are increasingly dominating the
business world, emerging at a rapid pace and reaching everyday pro-
ducts through embedded software. In a rapidly changing digital world,
innovations can be outdated quickly. Additionally, fierce competition
rules such business environments. Therefore, creating products with a
high rate of adoption is crucial to guarantee firms' growth and profit.
Lack of a clear understanding of the phenomenon of late adoption and
the drivers of digital innovation diffusion might result in slow diffusion.
Slow diffusion can consequently lead to losing market share to com-
petitors and to negative financial results. Therefore, understanding the
determinants of late adoption is necessary to develop digital innova-
tions that spread faster and address a larger market segment.
This study explores the determinants of late adoption of digital in-
novations. Section two comprises an overview of the literature on the
topic. The following section presents a short description of the factors
under analysis and the method. After the discussion of the results, the
last two sections deal with the theoretical and practical implications,
and limitations and directions for further research, respectively.
2. Current understanding
This study explores attitude toward technologies, negative word of
mouth, global brand image, consumer innovativeness, and lead-user
profile and assesses whether each of these factors influences late
adoption of digital innovations.
Understanding whether or why consumers adopt an innovation is
critical knowledge for the theory and practice of innovation and new
product development. Technology adoption researchers have widely
applied the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory (e.g. Karahanna,
Straub, & Chervany, 1999). Building on DOI theory, scholars have de-
veloped models of adoption such as the Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
(Davis, 1989), Technology Readiness Index (Parasuraman, 2000), or
Technology Adoption Propensity Index (TAP) (Ratchford & Barnhart,
2012). The DOI literature mainly focuses on understanding reasons and
likelihood of adoption. Rogers' five factors (i.e., relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability) (Rogers,
1962) are among the attributes scholars use across various industries to
demonstrate the likelihood of adoption (Bartl, Füller, Mühlbacher, &
Ernst, 2012; Schwarz & Ernst, 2008).
Although consumers' reaction to innovations has been one of the
main research topics in the field of diffusion and adoption of innova-
tions, studies have not sufficiently explored the other possible response
to digital innovations, that is, resistance to innovation which results in
late adoption. Numerous studies have highlighted the need to under-
stand why consumers resist to innovations and adopt late (Garcia,
Bardhi, & Friedrich, 2007). Recent studies stress the importance of re-
sistant consumers' input for developing new products (Lages, 2016),
exploring scales to identify late adopters (Jahanmir & Lages, 2016), and
proposing methods to involve lag-users and sceptic consumers in idea
generation and thus develop products with a higher rate of adoption
(Jahanmir & Lages, 2015).
338
Journal of Business Research 88 (2018) 337–343
Rate of adoption, which is “the relative speed with which an in-
novation is adopted by members of a social system” (Rogers, 1995, p.
221), is a key diffusion factor. Consumers' resistance to innovation re-
sults in a lower rate of adoption. Researchers have explored how to
facilitate and accelerate the rate of adoption (Claudy, Garcia, &
O'Driscoll, 2015) and how to overcome barriers to adoption of in-
novations (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). However, literature on late
adoption is scarce. This study explores factors influencing rate of
adoption and leading to late adoption of digital innovations.
2.1. What could affect the rate of adoption?
TAM (Davis, 1989) builds on both theory of reasoned action (TRA)
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB)
(Ajzen, 1991). On the one hand, TRA proposes that users' beliefs define
their attitude toward innovations and consequently their intentions to
adopt. On the other hand, TPB expands TRA with an additional con-
struct of perceived behavior control. TAM stems from these two the-
ories, exploring the use of technology in the workplace (Davis, 1989)
and presents two elements as primary reasons for adoption of innova-
tions: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. However, scho-
lars have criticized TAM for exploring mainly the external factors of
perceived usefulness and ease of use and not considering internal fac-
tors such as attitudes and emotions (Djamasbi, Strong, & Dishaw, 2010;
Yang, Kim, & Yoo, 2013). To address this limitation, this study con-
siders both external and internal factors that could influence rate of
adoption of digital innovations. The study identifies five factors and
analyses their effect on rate of adoption: a) user attitude toward a
technology, b) negative word of mouth, c) global brand image, d)
consumer innovativeness, and e) lead-user profile (Table 1).
2.1.1. Attitude toward technology
User attitude toward innovations is among the key elements driving
technology adoption (Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004; Rogers
Everett, 1995). Attitude toward an innovation refers to users' assess-
ment of the desirability of that product, which could predict the like-
lihood of adoption (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989).
Claudy et al. (2015) differentiate between reasons for and against
adoption of innovations and find that consumers' positive attitude to-
ward innovation influences their adoption intentions. In addition, user
attitude embodies user evaluation of an innovation. Dodds et al. (1991)
propose that price, brand, and store information determine users' per-
ception of quality and value. Porter and Donthu (2006) extend the TAM
model to understand which consumer beliefs explain attitude toward
and use of technologies. They find that users' attitude toward tech-
nology adoption is positively correlated with their use of that tech-
nology. Yang and Yoo (2004) also find that attitude is a key variable in
studying adoption. Thus, this study explores the influence of users' in-
itial attitude toward digital innovations on the rate of adoption.
2.1.2. Negative word of mouth
Rogers (1962) defines diffusion of innovation as the process of ac-
ceptance of an innovation over time among members of a social system.
In his words:
“the diffusion process consists of a new idea, individual A, who
knows about the innovation, and individual B, who does not yet
know about the innovation. The social relationship of A and B has a
great deal to say about the conditions under which A will tell B
about the innovation and the results of this telling” (Rogers, 1962,
pp. 13–14).
As such, diffusion is a social rather than an economic phenomenon,
in which interpersonal communication plays a key role. Exploring word
of mouth allows scholars to understand how interpersonal commu-
nication influences adoption. Martilla (1971) proposes that word of
mouth gains more importance in a later stage of the adoption process.
S.F. Jahanmir, J. Cavadas Journal of Business Research 88 (2018) 337–343

Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis.

Factor Scale items Cronbach's alpha KMO test

Late adopter profile I believe that the enormous amount of money invested in this industry did not 0.883 0.875
(Adapter from Rogers Everett, 1995 and Moore, 2014) contribute to improve performance.
I believe that innovations in this sector did not make life easier.
I believe that the enormous amount of money invested in this service did not
contribute to facilitate previous routines.
This service does not fulfill the expectations I had at the time of purchase.
The services of this industry do not fulfill the expectations I have at the time
of purchase.
Most new services in this industry don't fulfill the promises that were made at
the time of their purchase.
I believe this company promises something and sells something else.
After buying this service, I found out that it was not what I expected it to be.
I continuously find differences between sales claims and the delivered
service.
I rarely promote this type of services positively.
I often speak negatively about this type of services.
Attitude toward a technology After buying this service, my expectations were surprisingly exceeded. 0.903 0.887
(Adapted from Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991 and Chilers, This service turned out to be of better quality than what I often thought.
Carr, Peck, & Carson, 2001) I often speak positively about this type of services.
I think this is a good browser.
I have a positive opinion about this browser.
The next time I use a browser, I will use this browser.
I will continue to use this browser in the future.
It is very likely that I will use this browser in the future.
I am very familiar with this browser.
Using this browser is boring
Using this browser is exciting.
Using this browser allows navigation through internet.
Using this browser is very useful for me to engage in online activities.
I believe this browser has a clear design.
Negative word of mouth I send or post negative comments about the brand of this browser. 0.95 0.873
(Adapted from Lam, Ahearne, & Schillewaert, 2012) I share negative opinions about this product
I write negative remarks on this browser.
I take active part in negative discussions related to this browser.
I rave about the dark side of this browser to others.
Global brand image Buying global brands makes me feel like a citizen of the world. 0.925 0.857
Buying global brands makes me feel part of something bigger.
(Adapted from Strizhakova, Coulter, & Price, 2012) Buying global brands gives me the sense of belonging to the global
marketplace.
A global brand name tells me a great deal about the quality of the product.
A global brand is an important source of information about the durability and
reliability of the product.
I can tell a lot about a product's quality from the global brand name.
My choice of global brands says something about me as a person.
I choose global brands that help to express my identity to others.
Global brands that I use communicate important information about the type
of person I am as a person.
Global brands play a prominent role in my daily life.
I can name global brands in many product categories.
Global brands are important to me.
I am knowledgeable about different global brands in many product
categories.
Global brands interest me.
I am familiar with many global brands.
Consumer innovativeness I believe people learn to be innovators. 0.879 0.859
(Adapted from Jahanmir & Lages, 2015) If I had the chance, I would like to innovate.
I can develop ideas for new products on my own.
I have trust in my new ideas.
I can convince people to accept my new ideas.
I consider myself to be an innovator.
I am convinced that, following a structured methodology, I can come up with
new ideas.
Lead-user profile In the past, I modified products myself. 0.803 0.678
(Adapted from Von Hippel, 1986) In the past, I developed products myself.
In the past, I came up with new solutions for problems.

He confirms that, traditionally, marketers have attempted to reach in-
fluential individuals of communities. Previous studies consider early
adopters as influential individuals with greater opinion leadership
compared to late adopters (Czepiel, 1974). Opinion leaders are in-
dividuals “whose opinions are highly respected and utilized […] to help
in making decisions across a variety of situations” (Cosmas & Sheth,
1980). Early adopters, as opinion leaders, contribute to the positive
word of mouth about innovations (Lam, Lee, & Mizerski, 2009; Van Eck,
Jager, & Leeflang, 2011). Conversely, late adopters and lag-users tend
to contribute to negative word of mouth (Jahanmir & Lages, 2015).
Therefore, this study includes the construct of negative word of mouth
to explore its influence on rate of adoption and on late adoption of

339
S.F. Jahanmir, J. Cavadas
digital innovations.
2.1.3. Global brand image
Brand is a central element of word of mouth (Lovett, Peres, &
Shachar, 2014). In fact, scholars link innovation adoption to brand
image. Hence, corporates allocate resources to understanding the in-
fluence of brand image on adoption behavior (Thompson & Sinha,
2008). Kotler (1991) defines brand as “a name, term, sign, symbol or
design, or combination of them, which is intended to identify the goods
and services of one seller or a group of sellers to differentiate them from
those of competitors” (Kotler, 1991, p. 442). Knowledge about a brand
influences consumers' decisions (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994). Thus,
brand strategy is a determinant of adoption and new product success
(Truong, Klink, Simmons, Grinstein, & Palmer, 2017). As globalization
evolves, communities connect to both local and global cultural milieu.
Developing the appropriate brand image is key for a global marketing
strategy (Roth, 1995). Additionally, managers of multi-nationals are
now more conscious about the “global” cultural identity of modern
consumers. Consequently, firms strive to create a global brand image to
address these growing communities (Strizhakova et al., 2012). Building
on this established body of literature, this study employs global brand
image and explores its possible connection to late adoption of digital
innovations.
2.1.4. Consumer innovativeness
Consumer innovativeness, or the propensity to adopt early, influ-
ences consumers' preference for certain brands (Rogers Everett, 1995).
Midgley and Dowling (1978) refer to consumer innovativeness as
“consumption of newness,” that is, a tendency to adopt innovations
more quickly than other consumers. Scholars also refer to consumer
innovativeness as a force resulting in innovative behavior (Roehrich,
2004). Researchers have also examined the possible connection be-
tween consumers' innovativeness and their adoption behavior (Foxall,
1995; Goldsmith, Freiden, & Eastman, 1995; Manning, Bearden, &
Madden, 1995; Midgley & Dowling, 1978). This study refers to con-
sumer innovativeness as the force behind innovative behavior which
results in the ability to generate new ideas. The analysis aims at un-
derstanding whether having an innovative attitude influences con-
sumers' rate of adoption of digital innovations.
2.1.5. Lead-user profile
Innovative consumers play a key role in the diffusion and adoption
of innovations (Im, Bayus, & Mason, 2003). One stream of research in
this field explores lead-users and their role in idea creation and new
products' success (Herstatt & Von Hippel, 1992; Urban & Von Hippel,
1988; Von Hippel, 1986). Lead-users are customers that face needs
ahead of the general market and who benefit significantly from finding
solutions to those needs (Von Hippel, 1986). Studies show that lead-
users possess opinion leadership in their communities (Kratzer & Lettl,
2009) and consequently adopt products ahead of their peers
(Schweisfurth & Herstatt, 2015). They demonstrate stronger consumer
innovativeness and are more likely to adopt new technologies (Schreier,
Oberhauser, & Prügl, 2007). Building on this stream of research, this
study focuses on the influence of having a lead-user profile on
Table 2
Correlation between factors.
Late adopter Attitude toward a Negative word of
profile technology mouth
Late adopter profile 1
Attitude toward a technology −0.607 1
Negative word of mouth 0.304 −0.062 1
Global brand awareness −0.266 0.208 0.022
Consumer innovativeness −0.157 0.044 −0.179
Lead-user profile −0.156 0.089 0.035
340
Journal of Business Research 88 (2018) 337–343
consumers' rate of adoption of digital innovations.
Lead-users are sources of commercially attractive ideas (Franke,
Von Hippel, & Schreier, 2006), whereas late adopters' involvement with
new products is less notable (Jahanmir & Lages, 2016). Therefore,
firms' research and development, new product development, and go-to-
market strategies traditionally focus on the likelihood of adoption by
lead users rather than on skepticism and resistance to adopting an in-
novation. Such an approach ignores a major portion of users: the late
adopters. This study aims at clarifying the phenomenon of late adoption
to obtain a late adopter profile. Which factors affect late adoption?
Which strategies can help companies avoid/reduce late adoption?
3. Research design
The study assesses how several constructs influence a customer's
position as an early or a late adopter of digital innovations. A ques-
tionnaire provides the data for this study. The information obtained
through interviews with experts on the topic served to refine the
measures (Churchill Jr, 1979). In addition, a pilot test on several users
and academic judges confirmed content and face validity. With a valid
sample of 114 users of a major web browser, the survey adopts scales
from the established literature and uses a five-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree).
This study applies an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to under-
stand the underlying relationships among the variables by identifying a
set of relevant constructs (Atuahene-Gima, 1995; Hemmert, Bstieler, &
Okamuro, 2014; Narver, Slater, & MacLachlan, 2004; Primo &
Amundson, 2002; Pujari, 2006).
This method overcomes the intercorrelation among the variables
assessed in the questionnaire. The resulting six factors have values for
criterion KMO (Kaiser-Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy,
KMO) (Kaiser, 1974) greater than 0.65 and present a Cronbach's alpha
value estimation greater than 0.7 (Table 1). These tests confirm the
validity and reliability of the questionnaire used to create the factors,
which were estimated on the Principal component because the ques-
tionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert scales. The control of sphericity
(Bartlett's sign = 0 for all factors) validates the choice of an EFA with
principal component analysis.
The correlation matrix in Table 2 presents an analysis of the re-
lationship between the six estimated factors. Late adopters tend to have
certain characteristics. The high negative correlation value between
Late Adopter Profile and Attitude toward a Technology (−0.607) confirms
that early adopters have a positive attitude toward digital innovations
and recognize the importance and value of pursuing and/or using the
technology (Jahanmir & Lages, 2016). The positive correlation between
Late Adopter Profile and Negative Word of Mouth confirms the negative
influence of negative word of mouth on rate of adoption (Lam et al.,
2009; Van Eck et al., 2011). Through word of mouth, consumers ex-
change their opinions about brands. As the negative correlation be-
tween Late Adopter Profile and Global Brand Awareness indicates, the
higher the public's awareness of a global brand, the faster people will
adopt its digital innovation. In addition, a consumer who perceives him
or herself as innovative and/or has the ability to identify future op-
portunities will hold a higher position in the adoption scale.
Global brand Consumer innovativeness Lead-user
awareness profile
1
0.313 1
0.046 0.279 1
S.F. Jahanmir, J. Cavadas
Accordingly, the results show a negative correlation between Late
Adopter Profile and Consumer Innovativeness, indicating that late adop-
ters consider themselves to be less innovative.
In order to understand what might influence users of digital in-
novations to switch their position on the scale of adoption (from early
adopter to late adopter, or vice versa), the estimated factors are con-
sidered as variables of a binary logistic regression approach. This
method of analysis is appropriate because the concept of late adopter
can be subjective and its assessment may be non-categorical. In fact,
several studies have used logistic regression approaches to estimate, for
instance, the rate of adoption of e-procurement (Soares-Aguiar &
Palma-dos-Reis, 2008), the adoption of electronic data interchange in
small businesses (Kuan & Chau, 2001), or the adoption of internet and
mobile banking with unlimited remote access (Laukkanen, 2016).
These studies show that several characteristics influence the rate of
adoption of a product. Therefore, linear or almost linear action-reaction
models are not reliable to assess how behavioral beliefs, social influ-
ences, personal characteristics, and product features stimulate in-
dividual adoption.
The binary response variable draws on the Late Adopter Profile
(Jahanmir & Lages, 2016). The value of this variable follows a crescent
order, whereby the first 50% of the respondents are late adopters (the
ones with the lowest value for the late adopter profile factor), while the
remaining 50% belong to the first half of the adoption curve (Jahanmir
& Lages, 2016; Rogers, 1995). This binary variable is the dependent
variable in the following two models, where 1 represents the target: late
adoption.
The remaining five factors in Table 1 are explanatory variables of
the first approach of the binomial logit regression. With late adoption as
target variable, the Hosmer and Lemeshow test yields a p-value of
0.402, which indicates a good fit of the preliminary model for the data,
with levels of correct predictions of about 75.7% of the cases. Table 3
contains the estimated parameters.
Considering the usual significance level of 0.05, the constructs Lead-
User Profile and Consumer Innovativeness do not contribute to the model
significantly. This result implies that the first three factors mentioned
explain the probability of being a late adopter. This is in line with the
level of correlation among the factors (Table 2). Due to importance of
the constructs Lead-User Profile and Consumer Innovativeness in the es-
tablished literature, they remain in the first model. Table 4 presents a
second model, designed to overcome the variables' lack of significance
(Table 4).
The second model demonstrates the final factors that influence the
probability of being a late adopter. This model has a Hosmer and
Lemeshow test with a p-value of 0.338, and a level of 73.1% of cor-
rected predictions. The three included factors have significant values
(Table 4).
4. Results
With exception of Negative Word of Mouth, all the variables have a
negative effect on the probability of moving on the adoption scale from
late to early adopter. In fact, although variables such as Attitude toward
a Technology and Global Brand Image contribute positively to the
Table 3
Binomial logit regression with 5 factors.
B S.E. Wald
Attitude toward a technology −1.466 0.322 20.774
Negative word of mouth 0.840 0.300 7.821
Global brand image −0.578 0.281 4.225
Consumer innovativeness −0.329 0.302 1.190
Lead-user profile −0.069 0.288 0.057
341
Journal of Business Research 88 (2018) 337–343
probability of a user to be a late adopter, this contribution is not higher
than 1 when compared to the condition of not having this type of be-
havior. The conclusions are similar for the Consumer Innovativeness and
Lead-User Profile variables.
Comparing the results of the two models, with the first model in-
cluding and the second model excluding the variables Consumer
Innovativeness and Lead-User Profile, the parameters estimated for the
remaining variables are quite similar. In the case of Attitude toward a
Technology, the parameter Ba decreases from −1.466 to −1.471 with
the exclusion of the two variables, which decreases the effect of the
Attitude toward a Technology on the probability of being a late adopter.
That is, the exponential value of this parameter decreases from 0.231 in
the model with five factors to 0.230 in the model with three factors.
Similar results emerge for the variable Global Brand Image, where the
parameter Bc takes the values −0.578 and −0.669 for the model with
five factors and the model with three factors, respectively. This change
also influences the effect of this variable on the probability of being a
late adopter, which decreases with the exclusion of factors from one
model to the other.
Negative Word of Mouth doubles the probability of a late adopter to
remain in the same position of the adoption scale. This conclusion is
common on both models, where the parameter Bb takes the values
0.840 and 0.866 for both first and second model. On both models, this
variable increases significantly the odds of being a late adopter.
In summary, the exclusion of the variables Lead-User Profile and
Consumer Innovativeness does not affect the results significantly. The
similarity between the values estimated for the binary logistic regres-
sion confirms this idea (Table 3 and Table 4) and justifies the use of the
significance level as a criterion to build and assess the variables that
contribute to the probability of being a late adopter.
5. Discussion and implications for theory and practice
Consistent with the literature, consumers' negative attitude toward
digital innovations increases the probability of adopting late
(Ba = −1.466, p = 0.0, Table 3). This situation takes place when cus-
tomers are not aware of the benefits of the technology and recognize
the value of a technology only after using it (Moore, 2014). Once they
adopt, the experience exceeds their expectations and their perception of
the quality increases. The results also support the fact that negative
word of mouth decreases the rate of adoption (Bb = 0.840, p = 0.005)
(H2). Late adopters are the last to adopt digital innovations; therefore,
their adoption decision partly depends on other users' positive opinion
about that technology (Moore, 2014). Strong negative word of mouth
about digital innovations affects the rate of adoption negatively. The
results also show that lack of a global brand image leads to a lower rate
of adoption (Bc = −0.578, p = 0.040). Finally, the findings also con-
firm the fourth hypothesis: a negative attitude toward consumer in-
novativeness leads to late adoption. This means that consumers that
believe they are not capable of innovating are more likely to adopt late
(Bd = −0.329, p = 0.275). Additionally, users that lack lead-user
characteristics tend to be late adopters as well (Be = −0.069,
p = 0.812).
The three factors included in the second model (Table 4) reveal that
Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
0.000 0.231 0.123 0.434
0.005 2.315 1.286 4.170
0.040 0.561 0.324 0.973
0.275 0.720 0.399 1.300
0.812 0.934 0.531 1.641
S.F. Jahanmir, J. Cavadas
Table 4
Binomial logit regression with 3 factors.
B S.E. Wald
Attitude toward a technology −1.471 0.320 21.089
Negative word of mouth 0.866 0.284 9.308
Global brand image −0.669 0.268 6.225
improving consumers' attitude toward a technology, that is, reducing
their skepticism and resistance to innovations, has a greater effect on
accelerating adoption than projecting the firm's global image or trying
to overcome the negative word of mouth related to digital innovations.
However, these two factors also play an important role in decreasing
the probability of being a late adopter.
Despite the importance of the topic of late adoption, empirical
studies in this field are still scarce. The results combine elements of the
literature in diffusion and adoption of innovations, marketing, and
strategy. The findings make a unique contribution to the field of dif-
fusion of innovation by exploring the phenomenon of late adoption and
identifying factors that affect and increase the probability of late
adoption of digital innovations. The study also explores relationships
between late adopter profile and five key elements of diffusion: attitude
toward a technology, negative word of mouth, global brand image,
consumer innovativeness, and lead-user profile.
Exploring and comprehending the determinants of late adoption
will allow firms to accelerate the rate of adoption for their technologies.
By understanding the late adopter profile, firms can create technologies
that not only appeal to early adopters, but also address the needs and
preferences of late adopters. Developing such technologies will allow
firms to cover the complete diffusion of innovation curve. Unlike early
adopters or lead-users, late adopters do not generate new ideas in-
dependently. However, they might be members of existing user com-
munities, where negative word of mouth is the dominant attitude when
spreading the word about digital innovations.
Creating a positive attitude toward technologies, reducing skepti-
cism and negative word of mouth, will allow companies to sell their
technologies faster. Firms can improve customers' attitude toward di-
gital innovations through trialability, a stronger customer orientation,
post sales services, and innovative CRM strategies. Building relation-
ships with customers will create trust and will allow them to develop a
positive attitude toward the technology. This will also help companies
to reduce the negative word of mouth about their technology and
therefore accelerate its rate of adoption. A global brand image affects
rate of adoption negatively, because late adopters value functionality
over brand image. To accelerate rate of adoption, firms should provide
evidence of their technologies' values through advertising, trials, and
positive word of mouth.
6. Limitations and directions for further research
This study provides valuable insights and implications, which at the
same time are subject to a number of limitations. Firstly, the sample
consisted of users of a web browser. Future research should explore the
effect of the five factors mentioned in this study on the adoption of
other digital innovations to confirm the generalizability of the results to
other types of digital innovations such as more recent breakthrough
innovations. The study uses a convenience sample of graduate students
in one European country. Through a cross-national study, future re-
search should test whether age and cultural and geographical factors
play a role in diffusion of digital innovations. Today, governments in-
vest heavily in developing and promoting digital innovations. Future
studies could examine the influence of governments and public policy
makers in promoting and accelerating the rate of adoption of digital
innovations.
342
Journal of Business Research 88 (2018) 337–343
Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
0.000 0.230 0.123 0.430
0.002 2.377 1.363 4.146
0.013 0.512 0.303 0.866
In conclusion, understanding the phenomenon of late adoption as
well as the late adopter profile can play a key role in generation, de-
velopment, and adoption of digital innovations for start-ups, estab-
lished firms, and government organizations. The findings advance the
innovation and new product development field by exploring late
adoption and its determinants and offering recommendations for ac-
celerating rate of adoption of digital innovations.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on
new product performance: A contingency approach. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 12(4), 275–293.
Bartl, M., Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., & Ernst, H. (2012). A Manager's perspective on
virtual customer integration for new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 29(6), 1031–1046.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude
toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS
Quarterly, 28, 229–254.
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension.
Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 214–228.
Chilers, L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations
for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(4), 511–535.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Claudy, M. C., Garcia, R., & O'Driscoll, A. (2015). Consumer resistance to innovation—A
behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4),
528–544.
Cosmas, S. C., & Sheth, J. N. (1980). Identification of opinion leaders across cultures: An
assessment for use in the diffusion of innovations and ideas. Journal of International
Business Studies, 11(1), 66–72.
Czepiel, J. A. (1974). Word-of-mouth processes in the diffusion of a major technological
innovation. Journal of Marketing Research, 172–180.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8),
982–1003.
Djamasbi, S., Strong, D. M., & Dishaw, M. (2010). Affect and acceptance: Examining the
effects of positive mood on the technology acceptance model. Decision Support
Systems, 48(2), 383–394.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 307–319.
Foxall, G. R. (1995). Cognitive styles of consumer initiators. Technovation, 15(5),
269–288.
Franke, N., Von Hippel, E., & Schreier, M. (2006). Finding commercially attractive user
innovations: A test of lead-user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
23(4), 301–315.
Garcia, R., Bardhi, F., & Friedrich, C. (2007). Overcoming consumer resistance to in-
novation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4).
Goldsmith, R. E., Freiden, J. B., & Eastman, J. K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue
in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation, 15(10), 601–612.
Grover, V., & Kohli, R. (2012). Cocreating IT value: New capabilities and metrics for
multiform environments. MIS Quarterly, 36(1).
Hemmert, M., Bstieler, L., & Okamuro, H. (2014). Bridging the cultural divide: Trust
formation in university–industry research collaborations in the US, Japan, and South
Korea. Technovation, 34(10), 605–616.
Henfridsson, O., Mathiassen, L., & Svahn, F. (2014). Managing technological change in
the digital age: The role of architectural frames. Journal of Information Technology,
29(1), 27–43.
Herstatt, C., & Von Hippel, E. (1992). From experience: Developing new product concepts
via the lead user method: A case study in a “low-tech” field. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 9(3), 213–221.
Im, S., Bayus, B. L., & Mason, C. H. (2003). An empirical study of innate consumer in-
novativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 61–73.
S.F. Jahanmir, J. Cavadas
Jahanmir, S. F., & Lages, L. F. (2015). The lag-user method: Using laggards as a source of
innovative ideas. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37, 65–77.
Jahanmir, S. F., & Lages, L. F. (2016). The late-adopter scale: A measure of late adopters
of technological innovations. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1701–1706.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption
across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs.
MIS Quarterly, 23, 183–213.
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control
(8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kratzer, J., & Lettl, C. (2009). Distinctive roles of lead users and opinion leaders in the
social networks of schoolchildren. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 646–659.
Kuan, K. K., & Chau, P. Y. (2001). A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small
businesses using a technology–organization–environment framework. Information
Management, 38(8), 507–521.
Lages, L. F. (2016). VCW—Value creation wheel: Innovation, technology, business, and
society. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4849–4855.
Lam, D., Lee, A., & Mizerski, R. (2009). The effects of cultural values in word-of-mouth
communication. Journal of International Marketing, 17(3), 55–70.
Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2012). A multinational examination of the
symbolic–instrumental framework of consumer–brand identification. Journal of
International Business Studies, 43(3), 306–331.
Laukkanen, T. (2016). Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar
service innovations: The case of the internet and mobile banking. Journal of Business
Research, 69(7), 2432–2439.
Lovett, M., Peres, R., & Shachar, R. (2014). A data set of brands and their characteristics.
Marketing Science, 33(4), 609–617.
Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and
the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329–345.
Martilla, J. A. (1971). Word-of-mouth communication in the industrial adoption process.
Journal of Marketing Research, 8(2), 173–178.
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measure-
ment. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229–242.
Moore, G. A. (2014). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to main-
stream customers. USA: HarperBusiness.
Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and proactive market
orientation and new-product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
21(5), 334–347.
Nylén, D., & Holmström, J. (2015). Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diag-
nosing and improving digital product and service innovation. Business Horizons,
58(1), 57–67.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to
measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4),
307–320.
Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how
attitudes determine internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demo-
graphics. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 999–1007.
Primo, M. A., & Amundson, S. D. (2002). An exploratory study of the effects of supplier
relationships on new product development outcomes. Journal of Operations
Management, 20(1), 33–52.
Pujari, D. (2006). Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding the in-
fluences on market performance. Technovation, 26(1), 76–85.
343
Journal of Business Research 88 (2018) 337–343
Ratchford, M., & Barnhart, M. (2012). Development and validation of the technology
adoption propensity (TAP) index. Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1209–1215.
Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of
Business Research, 57(6), 671–677.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY, USA: The Free Press.
Rogers, M. E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, 12.
Roth, M. S. (1995). The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of
global brand image strategies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 163–175.
Schreier, M., Oberhauser, S., & Prügl, R. (2007). Lead users and the adoption and dif-
fusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities. Marketing
Letters, 18(1–2), 15–30.
Schwarz, N., & Ernst, A. (2008). Agent-based modelling of the diffusion of environmental
innovations: An empirical approach. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4),
497–511.
Schweisfurth, T. G., & Herstatt, C. (2015). Embedded (lead) users as catalysts to product
diffusion. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(1), 151–168.
Soares-Aguiar, A., & Palma-dos-Reis, A. (2008). Why do firms adopt e-procurement sys-
tems? Using logistic regression to empirically test a conceptual model. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 120–133.
Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2012). The young adult cohort in emerging
markets: Assessing their glocal cultural identity in a global marketplace. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 43–54.
Talke, K., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). How to overcome pro-change bias: Incorporating
passive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 894–907.
Thompson, S. A., & Sinha, R. K. (2008). Brand communities and new product adoption:
The influence and limits of oppositional loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 65–80.
Truong, Y., Klink, R. R., Simmons, G., Grinstein, A., & Palmer, M. (2017). Branding
strategies for high-technology products: The effects of consumer and product in-
novativeness. Journal of Business Research, 70, 85–91.
Urban, G. L., & Von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analyses for the development of new
industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.
Van Eck, P. S., Jager, W., & Leeflang, P. S. (2011). Opinion leaders' role in innovation
diffusion: A simulation study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2),
187–203.
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management
Science, 32(7), 791–805.
Wells, C. (2016a). The rise of tech's late adopters. The Wall Street Journal, D1 (US).
Wells, C. (2016b). Tech's late adopters proud to be dinosaurs. Today's fashionably late
adopters. The Wall Street Journal, 8 (Europe).
Wells, C. (2016c). Today's fashionably late adopters. The Wall Street Journal, A8 (Asia).
Yang, B., Kim, Y., & Yoo, C. (2013). The integrated mobile advertising model: The effects
of technology-and emotion-based evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 66(9),
1345–1352.
Yang, H. D., & Yoo, Y. (2004). It's all about attitude: Revisiting the technology acceptance
model. Decision Support Systems, 38(1), 19–31.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Jr., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation
in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.
Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K. J., Boland, R. J., Jr., & Berente, N. (2010, June 8). The next wave of
digital innovation: Opportunities and challenges: A report on the research workshop
‘digital challenges in innovation research’ (Retrieved from) http://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1622170.