Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 522–525
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
New perspectives on consumer adoption and diffusion of innovations
1. Introduction
Understanding what happens when innovations are adopted by in-
dividual consumers and diffused in aggregate markets is of key interest
for managers, policy makers, and researchers. Seminal individual-level
models—like the technology acceptance model (Venkatesh & Davis,
2000) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991)—as well as
aggregate models—like innovation characteristics (Rogers, 1995) and
the Bass model (Bass, 1969)—are still widely applied to improve and
guide innovation management. However, these models were developed
in a time when consumer-oriented innovations were assumed to be new
products and standardized services; when markets were considered to
consist of individuals or stable segments of consumers whose behaviors
were well structured and rather stable over time; and when innovators
were considered as single firms with considerable control over the
content of and communication about the innovation. In contemporary
markets, digital as well as physical, these assumptions are not ne-
cessarily equally relevant and realistic. Consumers increasingly buy
access instead of ownership, innovations are often co-created with (or
between) consumers, and markets are largely platform-based, complex,
and dependent on the actions of other consumers and actors.
An important question is whether the original adoption and diffu-
sion (AD) concepts should be reserved only for describing and ex-
plaining how something new comes into use or gets used across user
groups when the contexts of innovation are characterized by the above
assumptions. Perhaps other concepts and models are more suitable
when the innovation contexts deviate from the traditional assumptions.
Numerous concepts related to AD might be applicable, such as accep-
tance (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), assimilation (Meyer & Goes, 1988),
continuance (Bhattacherjee, 2001), implementation (Matland, 1995),
dissemination (Dearing, 2008), commercialization (Slater & Mohr,
2006), translation (Tatnall, 2009), domestication (Silverstone &
Haddon, 1996), transition (Geels & Schot, 2007), and transfer
(Krugman, 1979) among others. These concepts are naturally not sy-
nonymous, and neither are adoption and diffusion, but they all belong
to a larger nomological network of concepts that captures different
aspects of how something new comes into use. Instead of trying to force
concepts like these into a common nomological network, in this Special
Issue (SI) we propose different research questions. We ask whether the
assumptions required for meaningful use of the AD concepts have
gradually eroded in the contemporary innovation context. If so, should
the related concepts, such as those listed above, replace them? Finally,
considering the long tradition of AD research, can the related under-
lying concepts and the theories be used to advance and renew the
traditional AD models to thus better serve us in the empirical contexts
of innovation when the original AD model assumptions are loosened?
No doubt, innovations, consumers, and markets have changed
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.048
Available online 20 May 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T
significantly since the time when the concepts of adoption and diffusion
were first introduced. The original AD theories and models also have
evolved, but there remain some underlying assumptions at odds with
the contexts of contemporary innovations. In this SI, we suggest four
challenging aspects wherein the empirical contexts of contemporary
innovations often seem to deviate from the assumptions of the original
AD models.
2. The object of adoption and diffusion: From artifacts to practices
First, innovations—the objects of adoption and diffusion—have
become increasingly more complex. Instead of adopting individual
products with prebuilt functionality supporting predefined behaviors,
the functionality of many products depends on complementary services
and platforms for their development and distribution in eco-systems
(e.g., smartphones and game consoles (Cenamor, Usero, & Fernández,
2013)). To enjoy the full benefits of these and similar offerings, more
fundamental changes in larger patterns of consumer behavior might be
required (e.g., sustainable transportation (Peattie, 2010)). In ecosys-
tems, it might be more fruitful to consider the object of adoption as the
shared value proposition of the ecosystem’s actors (Adner, 2017, p. 40).
Thus, innovations are more often abstract ideas that manifest them-
selves through consumers’ interpretations and experimental practices
(e.g., local, sustainable, and zero-waste food consumption). Sometimes
the practice itself is latent in the products and services that enable it
and materializes through the adopters’ interactions with other users
(e.g., text messaging (Ling, 2004)). Thus, consumers increasingly adopt
new practices rather than individual products.
Scholars have long accepted this idea in organizational adoption
research (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002), but only gradually has it
been incorporated in consumer adoption research (Cenamor et al.,
2013; Giesler, 2012; van Riel et al., 2013). However, replacing artifacts
with practice in AD studies is not without its challenges as “diffusion
studies treat practices as objects that are either adopted or not, essen-
tially leading to the ‘black-boxing’ of practice” (Lounsbury & Crumley,
2007, p. 993).
3. The subject of adoption and diffusion: From single- to multi-
level
A simple interpretation of the issue of subject in AD research is
“Who is the adopter in a particular AD model?” Even with this simple
interpretation, the innovation contexts are complex. For example, the
decisions around adopting physical products (e.g., sustainable or zero-
waste food), digital services (e.g., home entertainment services), and
physical services (e.g., home care services) involve not just individual
users but often households, communities, and ecosystems. Moreover,

consumers have become more heterogeneous. One consumer’s value
and likelihood of adopting an innovation increasingly depends on the
behavior and contributions of other co-creating consumers (e.g., social
media services (Pfeffer, Zorbach, & Carley, 2014)). Innovations often
rely on redefined consumer and producer roles in which the difference
between the two is often blurred (e.g., sharing economy services) be-
cause the same subject might be both a consumer and a producer.
Literature that incorporates this change includes user innovation re-
search (Baldwin & Von Hippel, 2011) and consumer culture research
(Kjeldgaard, Askegaard, Rasmussen, & Østergaard, 2017), but AD re-
search has been less influenced.
The changing roles in the innovation processes also influence how
we understand the subject of innovation. Although a separation be-
tween the subject of adoption and the subject of innovation is contrary
to the definition of innovation, which requires both ideation and im-
plementation (Schumpeter, 1934), a “firm bias” in most traditional AD
literature reserves invention, development, and product introduction to
the firms and adoption to the consumers. However, the user innovation
literature makes a point of reversing these roles (Bradonjic, Franke, &
Lüthje, 2019).
A more open approach is to consider subjects with multiple roles
that can be played by numerous actors in the innovation processes and
in adoption and diffusion. Thus, innovation in the user and producer
roles (Michel, Brown, & Gallan, 2008) is in itself a type of innovation
that is adopted and diffused. Furthermore, the “subject of adoption and
diffusion” reveals the need to question the level of analysis in tradi-
tional AD research. For example, research on group adoption has shown
how attributes at the group level influence adoption (Sarker & Valacich,
2010), which implies that we need to combine individual- and group-
level theories, measures, and analyses to capture the multiplicity of the
subjects of adoption. For example, the diffusion of sharing apps like
Airbnb might be better understood if we investigate the evolution of
individual- and group-level (shared and conflicting) attitudes and in-
tentions in the subgroups of actors who co-create the service.
4. Temporality: From snapshot variance studies to understanding
of processes
By temporality we refer to the importance of time in AD research. For
example, the optimal timing of innovation introductions is a topic in AD
research (Prins & Verhoef, 2007; Sundqvist, Frank, & Puumalainen,
2005). However, the process of when adoption and diffusion take place
is increasingly fuzzy as expectations of what comes next (Dahlén,
Thorbjørnsen, & Sjödin, 2011) and how consumers, producers, and
regulators react to these expectations evolve (e.g., electric cars).
Consumers' motives have evolved from seeking functionality and
hedonic value in individual products via identity development, to
creating meaning in life (e.g., fitness fanatics). This complex process
unfolds over time and involves a multitude of integrated products and
behaviors. While the consumer adoption (e.g., Prins & Verhoef, 2007)
and diffusion literatures (e.g., Sundqvist et al., 2005) still consider
adoption to be a discrete event in time and generally apply a variance
approach (see Giesler & Fischer, 2017), related research has long ac-
cepted that a more complex process approach is required (Silverstone &
Haddon, 1996; Damanpour, 1987).
As consumers increasingly buy access (rather than ownership), the
differences in barriers and drivers between initial adoption decisions and
continued use decisions become more relevant (Ferratt, Prasad, &
Dunne, 2018). Taking a more processual perspective does not mean
concepts with high explanatory power in AD research must be aban-
doned. Rather it is a question of placing these concepts in a processual
research framework. Attempts to do so have already been made in re-
search on continuance (Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004) and adop-
tion dynamics (Bayerl, Lauche, & Axtell, 2016). However, to avoid
“black boxing” the practice (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007), it might be
valuable to use approaches and concepts that are inherently processual
523
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 522–525
and relational. For example, several concepts and frameworks that
should translate well for AD research can be found in studies on in-
novation in the context of information systems (e.g., Liang, Saraf, Hu, &
Xue, 2007).
5. Contextuality: From representationalism to performativity
By contextuality we refer to the sensitivity of adoption and diffusion
to the context of innovation. With reference to the abovementioned
aspects, we use the following example to illustrate a simple form of
contextuality that originates from the interactions between the object
and the subject of adoption and diffusion: Even in research on nurses’
adoption of new practices, it is acknowledged that their intention to
adopt varies depending on which patients they consider the new
practice to be applicable to (Macdonald, Rogers, Blakeman, & Bower,
2008, p. 194). This example illustrates the sensitivity of adoption in-
tentions in the local ecosystem of a nurse and his/her patients, but it
also shows how any measurement of intention is actually influenced by
implicit assumptions about the context of the object and subject being
studied. Another form of contextuality is when the intentions to adopt
influence the innovation that is being adopted. For instance, even
markets—a context in which adoption and diffusion take place—are
increasingly created and formed through the institutional work of
consumers, producers, and other actors (Maciel & Fischer, 2020). Ra-
ther than adopting a predefined offering, consumers and other actors
jointly create and define the institutions of a market and develop
practices that we a posteriori interpret and label as the adopted in-
novation (e.g., street fashion, legal cannabis, gambling). With the roles
of adopters and market creators as the end points on a continuum of
consumer roles in a market, market reality and thus research have
gradually shifted toward the perspective that markets are created
(Nenonen et al., 2014; Humphreys, 2010). In several areas of research,
the term performativity is used to reflect this stronger form of con-
textuality (MacKenzie, Muniesa, and Siu, 2007). For example, perfor-
mativity has gained attention in innovation research. Garud, Gehman,
and Tharchen (2018, p. 500) suggested that “strategists, entrepreneurs,
and intrapreneurs are embedded-embodied actors who engage in ma-
terial-discursive practices in their attempts at constituting phenomena.”
In light of the recent user innovation research and our reflections
above, it is likely the same case for users. For example, Orlikowski and
Scott (2015) examine such performative processes in their compre-
hensive analyses of the sociomateriality of innovations like the rating
systems of sharing and hospitality services.
6. Advancing versus complementing AD research
Although AD models are often rather formal and the studies ap-
plying them are largely quantitative, much of the research that can be
used in responding to the above challenges has been theoretical (e.g.,
Vargo & Lusch, 2016; Nenonen et al., 2014; Harrison & Kjellberg,
2016). When empirical, the research has mostly been qualitative with a
focus on unique market characteristics or niche practices (Dolbec &
Fischer, 2015; Giesler, 2012). These contributions have enhanced our
understanding of the complexity of adoption and diffusion processes,
but they do not address adoption and diffusion explicitly. Due to these
studies’ indirect treatment of adoption and diffusion and their theore-
tical or qualitative approach, there is a need for more research that
directly addresses the advancement of AD theory. There is also a need
for models that are instrumental to management and policy decision
makers who typically appreciate formal theory and models that gen-
eralize well and can be used for predictive purposes. Despite being
criticized for predicting intentions better than actual behavior (Bagozzi,
2007), the explanatory power of many adoption models and the pre-
dictive accuracy of many formal diffusion models are appreciated by
decision makers.
As research that applies contemporary perspectives on market

creation, consumer innovation, and institutional work continues to
grow and mature, it also becomes more widespread, generic, opera-
tional, and thus applicable to managerial decision making. It is our
hope that such maturity can be reached and that our research can be
applied to advance the understanding of consumer adoption and dif-
fusion of innovations. We note that few, if any, studies have made any
attempt to structure and organize recent contributions with this pur-
pose in mind. Whether this SI fills this gap in the literature is for the
reader to determine. We present here seven articles that address the
challenging aspects of AD research and that offer valuable contributions
to advance this research tradition.
7. The articles in this issue
We received 71 manuscripts that responded to one or several of the
above challenging aspects of innovation contexts. The responses took
on different forms ranging from theoretical to empirical, and from those
trying to support and advance the original AD models to those being so
critical that they suggested replacing the models altogether.
Throughout the review process, we tried to stay as neutral as possible
regarding these two dimensions. Consequently, the articles that were
finally accepted cover studies along the continuum of both dimensions.
Their order of presentation is organized by the first dimension; that is,
mainly theoretical articles are presented first, and more empirically
oriented studies are presented later. This organization is purely for the
sake of readability for those who prefer to read all of the papers of the
SI. The order of presentation in no way reflects quality of or preference
for either of the two response forms from the guest editors.
The first two articles in this SI are mainly theoretical. They apply a
particular theory or theoretical perspective to address and discuss the
above challenges from alternative theoretical points of view. First,
Vargo, Akaka, and Wieland (2020) apply service-dominant logic (SDL)
to examine how we understand diffusion. Using institutional theory,
they discuss how we can take a more open processual perspective on
the various roles enacted by different subjects of adoption at different
levels of the diffusion process. They also discuss how the objects of
adoption exist at different levels, and that structural and institutional
arrangements also can be considered as objects of adoption.
Although Vargo et al. (2020) borrow from sociotechnical theory,
this perspective is more fully explored by Gruber (2020). Instead of
arguing that the “transition” concept from the multi-level perspective
(MLP) can replace the concepts of adoption and diffusion, Gruber
(2020) explores ways that this perspective can complement and ad-
vance AD studies. For example, he posits that adoption and legitimation
are behaviors that can be studied in parallel, and that the benefits of
innovations and the adopters’ beliefs should be contextualized. Ajzen
presented a similar argument (see Ajzen, 2015), but rarely is it applied
in studies that use his theories.
The next three articles start off with complementary theoretical
perspectives as their point of departure. However, these articles reveal
the implications of applying the perspectives in a particular case or
context of innovation. Nysveen, Pedersen, and Skard (2020) use prac-
tice theory to address the first three of the challenging aspects discussed
above (object, subject, and temporality) and apply their perspective
termed “ecosystems adoption of practices over time” (EAPT) to ambient
assisted living. Their main point is not to replace traditional AD models
with the EAPT perspective but to show that the complexity of the
context of adoption serves as a boundary condition for discriminating
between the traditional models and the EAPT perspective.
While Nysveen et al. (2020) focus on the microecosystem of adop-
ters, Trischler, Johnson, and Kristensson (2020) take a service ecosys-
tems perspective, similar to that of Vargo et al. (2020), to discuss how
we can better understand and support user innovation. User innovation
has recently gained considerable attention, challenging the “firm bias”
in traditional AD models (Bradonjic et al., 2019). Trischler et al. (2020)
show how their perspective can guide innovation policy both to support
524
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 522–525
“innovate for use” and to complement “innovate for profit.”
Although Schumpeter (1934) recognized market innovation as a
particular innovation type, AD models mainly focus on product in-
novation. However, market innovations are also adopted and diffused.
Branstad and Solem (2020) identify three logics found in recent lit-
erature on market innovation. By using the term logics and applying it
to market innovation in food markets, they show how the logics not
only characterize research but also imply differences in the funda-
mental understanding of market innovation among actors involved in
the market innovation activities themselves.
The last group of articles consists of two empirical studies, both with
a qualitative orientation. Although Rogers (1995) observed that in-
novations change or are reinvented over the process of diffusion, few
studies have explicitly investigated this topic from a diffusion per-
spective. In a historical and longitudinal study, Ertimur and Chen
(2020) investigate the changes in the so-called paleo diet practice over
30 years of diffusion. They identify three actor groups and three types
of institutional work that influenced the throughput of this process.
They further note that the complexity of a dietary practice (object)
requires a parallel investigation of adaptation and diffusion processes.
Kertcher, Venkatraman, and Coslor (2020) study adaptation as part
of the diffusion process. In contrast to the long-cycled adaptations of
practice as investigated by Ertimur and Chen (2020), Kertcher et al.
(2020) focus on adaptation in the early stage of the diffusion process.
The authors posit that understanding this stage is particularly relevant
in the scenario in which the innovation can be adopted by different
users, as adaptation is required for early diffusion across fields and
boundaries. The authors investigate grid computing and describe the
intersection of late-development and early-diffusion processes. In par-
ticular, they discuss phenomena such as co-linking across fields and
how entrepreneurial adopters help early adaptation. The research of
Kertcher et al. (2020) sheds light on the temporality of innovation by
showing that the distinct stages of such processes are not as clear-cut as
presumed in previous AD studies.
Together, the seven studies in this SI show how traditional AD
perspectives can be complemented or advanced with different theories
and theoretical perspectives, including, among others, institutional
theory, sociotechnical perspectives, service-dominant logic, and prac-
tice theory. These studies also demonstrate that there is still further to
go in turning these perspectives into refined, extended operational AD
models. Many suggestions in the studies will require further oper-
ationalization and development before they can function as applicable
and alternative AD models similar to those already available.
Meanwhile, we can be more explicit regarding the assumptions we
make when we use traditional AD models. The studies in this SI show us
how to deal with such explicitness. Moreover, the empirical studies that
apply some of the perspectives laid out in this SI are exploratory and
qualitative, and as such, they are alternatives rather than continuations
of AD studies. However, these studies offer direction for how we can
develop research designs that combine exploratory and confirmatory
studies that both deepen our understanding and make our predictions
of the paths of adoption and diffusion more exact.
References
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of
Management, 43(1), 39–58.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to
retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychology
Review, 9(2), 131–137.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a
paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 3.
Baldwin, C., & Von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer in-
novation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6),
1399–1417.
Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management
Science, 15(5), 215–227.

Bayerl, S., Lauche, K., & Axtell, C. (2016). Revisiting group-based technology adoption as
a dynamic process: The role of changing attitude-rationale configurations. MIS
Quarterly, 40(3), 775–784.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expecta-
tion-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude
toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS
Quarterly, 28(2), 229–254.
Bradonjic, P., Franke, N., & Lüthje, C. (2019). Decision-makers’ underestimation of user
innovation. Research Policy, 48(6), 1354–1361.
Branstad, A., & Solem, B. A. (2020). Emerging theories of consumer-driven market in-
novation, adoption, and diffusion: A selective review of consumer-oriented studies.
Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.028.
Cenamor, J., Usero, B., & Fernández, Z. (2013). The role of complementary products on
platform adoption: Evidence from the video console market. Technovation, 33(12),
405–416.
Dahlén, M., Thorbjørnsen, H., & Sjödin, H. (2011). A Taste of “Nextopia”. Journal of
Advertising, 40(4), 33–44.
Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary in-
novations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675–688.
Dearing, J. W. (2008). Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. Journal of Public
Health Management and Practice, 14(2), 99–108.
Dolbec, P. Y., & Fischer, E. (2015). Refashioning a field? Connected consumers and in-
stitutional dynamics in markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1447–1468.
Ertimur, B., & Chen, S. (2020). Adaptation and diffusion of renovations: The case of the
paleo diet. Journal of Business Research.
Ferratt, T. W., Prasad, J., & Dunne, E. J. (2018). Fast and slow processes underlying
theories of information technology use. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 19(1), 1–22.
Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-
level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of
Business Research, 55(2), 163–176.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Tharchen, T. (2018). Performativity as ongoing journeys:
Implications for strategy, entrepreneurship, and innovation. Long Range Planning,
51(3), 500–509.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research
Policy, 36(3), 399–417.
Giesler, M. (2012). How doppelgänger brand images influence the market creation pro-
cess: Longitudinal insights from the rise of botox cosmetic. Journal of Marketing,
76(6), 55–68.
Giesler, M., & Fischer, E. (2017). Market system dynamics. Marketing Theory, 17(1), 3–8.
Gruber, M. (2020). An evolutionary perspective on adoption–diffusion theory. Journal of
Business Research.
Harrison, D., & Kjellberg, H. (2016). How users shape markets. Marketing Theory, 16(4),
445–468.
Humphreys, A. (2010). Megamarketing: The creation of markets as a social process.
Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 1–19.
Kertcher, Z., Venkatraman, R., & Coslor, E. (2020). Pleasingly parallel: The early cross-
disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing.
Journal of Business Research.
Kjeldgaard, D., Askegaard, S., Rasmussen, J.Ø., & Østergaard, P. (2017). Consumers’
collective action in market system dynamics: A case of beer. Marketing Theory, 17(1),
51–70.
Krugman, P. (1979). A model of innovation, technology transfer, and the world dis-
tribution of income. Journal of Political Economy, 87(2), 253–266.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The
effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS
Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.
Ling, R. (2004). The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society. San Francisco,
CA: Elsevier.
Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional per-
spective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7), 993–1012.
Macdonald, W., Rogers, A., Blakeman, T., & Bower, P. (2008). Practice nurses and the
facilitation of self-management in primary care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2),
191–199.
Maciel, A. F., & Fischer, E. (2020). Collaborative market driving: How peer firms can
develop markets through collective action. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0022242920917982.
MacKenzie, D. A., Muniesa, F., & Siu, L. (Eds.). (2007). Do Economists Make Markets? On
the Performativity of Economics. UK: Princeton University Press.
525
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 522–525
Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict
model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
5(2), 145–174.
Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. (1988). Organizational assimilation of innovations: A multi-
level contextual analysis. Academy of management journal, 31(4), 897–923.
Michel, S., Brown, S. W., & Gallan, A. S. (2008). An expanded and strategic view of
discontinuous innovations: Deploying a service-dominant logic. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 54–66.
Nenonen, S., Kjellberg, H., Pels, J., Cheung, L., Lindeman, S., Mele, C., ... Storbacka, K.
(2014). A new perspective on market dynamics: Market plasticity and the stabili-
ty–fluidity dialectics. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 269–289.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Skard, S. (2020). Ecosystem adoption of practices over
time (EAPT): Toward an alternative view of contemporary technology adoption.
Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.014.
Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. (2015). Algorithms, crowds, innovation, materiality, perfor-
mativity, practice, sociomateriality. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 201–216.
Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 35, 195–228.
Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative
word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 20(1–2), 117–128.
Prins, R., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). Marketing communication drivers of adoption timing of
a new e-service among existing customers. Journal of Marketing, 71(2), 169–183.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sarker, S., & Valacich, J. S. (2010). An alternative to methodological individualism: A
non-reductionist approach to studying technology adoption by groups. MIS Quarterly,
34(4), 779–808.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and
communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In R. Silverstone, &
R. Mansell (Eds.). Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and
Communication Technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slater, S. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2006). Successful development and commercialization of
technological innovation: Insights based on strategy type. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 23(1), 26–33.
Sundqvist, S., Frank, L., & Puumalainen, K. (2005). The effects of country characteristics,
cultural similarity and adoption timing on the diffusion of wireless communications.
Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 107–110.
Tatnall, A. (2009). Information systems, technology adoption and innovation translation.
International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI),
1(1), 59–74.
Trischler, J., Johnson, M., & Kristensson, P. (2020). A service ecosystem perspective on
the diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovations. Journal of Business Research.
van Riel, A. C., Calabretta, G., Driessen, P. H., Hillebrand, B., Humphreys, A., Krafft, M., &
Beckers, S. F. (2013). Consumer perceptions of service constellations: Implications for
service innovation. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 314–329.
Vargo, S. L., Akaka, M. A., & Wieland, H. (2020). Rethinking the process of diffusion in
innovation: A service-ecosystems and institutional perspective. Journal of Business
Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.038.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of
service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Per Kristensson
Karlstad University, Sweden
E-mail address: per.kristensson@kau.se.
Per Egil Pedersen
University of Southeastern Norway, Norway
E-mail address: per.e.pedersen@usn.no.
Helge Thorbjørnsen
Norwegian School of Economics, Norway
E-mail address: helge.thorbjornsen@nhh.no.