Advertisement

A Cognitive Perspective on Consumers’ Resistances to Smart Products

  • Stefan Raff
  • Daniel Wentzel
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 533)

Abstract

Despite their increasing relevance, research falls short to reveal the key factors hindering the adoption of smart technologies. Therefore, the aim of this exploratory study was to elicit consumers’ cognitive representations, i.e. mental models of different smart product concepts based on similarity and dissimilarity judgments, and to label the key dimensions based on which consumers mentally categorize them. This was expected to shed light on drivers of adoption resistance in order to help practitioners in product design and promotion. An innovative mix of two research methods was applied, namely quantitative-descriptive projective mapping and free associations. We found that consumers mentally balance released smart product concepts along with a rationally laden ‘useful-useless’ dimension and unreleased concepts along with an emotionally laden ‘intrusive-useful’ dimension. Additionally, this research showcases (1) method diversity in the field of IS and (2) how non-IS scholars who apply new approaches to an IS phenomenon contribute with new perspectives and thus enrich the field as a whole. This is work in progress and part of an overarching mixed-method agenda. The exploratory findings will be used to carve out further research directions for this growing field (e.g. the development of a construct measuring consumers’ perceived intrusion of smart products).

Keywords

Smart product Internet of Things ICT Innovation resistance Adoption barrier Mental model Mixed-method research 

References

  1. 1.
    Accenture: Igniting Growth in Consumer Technology. Customer Survey (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Accenture: The Internet of Things: The Future of Consumer Adoption. Market Report (2015) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agarwal, R., Prasad, J.: Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decis. Sci. 30(2), 361–391 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bagozzi, R.P., Lee, K.H.: Consumer resistance to, and acceptance of, innovations. In: Arnould, E.J., Scott, L.M., (Eds.) NA - Advances in Consumer Research. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 218–225 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.W.: The identity crisis within the is discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Q. 27(2), 183–194 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhattacherjee, A., Hikmet, N.: Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: a theoretical model and empirical test. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 16(6), 725–737 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castellion, G., Markham, S.K.: Perspective: new product failure rates: influence of argumentum ad populum and self-interest. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 30(5), 976–979 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cao, J., Crews, J.M., Lin, M., Deokar, A., Burgoon, J.K., Nunamaker Jr., J.F.: Interactions between system evaluation and theory testing: a demonstration of the power of a mulitfaceted approach to systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 22(4), 207–235 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carley, K., Palmquist, M.: Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Soc. Forces 70(3), 601–636 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen, G.L., Olson, J.C.: Mapping consumers’ mental models with ZMET. Psychol. Mark. 19(6), 477–501 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Craik, K.J.W.: The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1943)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuny, C., Opaswongkarn, T.: Why do young thai women desire white skin? understanding conscious and nonconscious motivations of young women in Bangkok. Psychology and Marketing 34(5), 556–568 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deloitte: Smart Cities report: How rapid advances in technology are reshaping our economy and society. Market Report (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deschamps, J.-P.: Classic root causes of innovation failures—things we all know but sometimes forget. In: Pfeffermann, N., Gould, J. (eds.) Strategy and Communication for Innovation, pp. 41–60. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49542-2_4Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(1), 61–80 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dwivedi, Y.K., et al.: Research on information systems failures and successes: status update and future directions. Inf. Syst. Front. 17(1), 143–157 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., Williams, M.D.: Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ellen, P.S., Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S.: Resistance to technological innovations. an examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 19(4), 297–307 (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gigerenzer, G., Goldstein, D.G.: Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychol. Rev. 103(4), 650–669 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greene, J., Caracelli, V., Graham, W.: Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 11(3), 255–274 (1989)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gregan-Paxton, J., John, D.R.: Consumer learning by analogy: a model of internal knowledge transfer. J. Consum. Res. 24(3), 266–284 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grover, V., Lyytinen, K.: New state of play in information systems research: the push to the edges. MIS Q. 39(2), 271–296 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldstone, R.: An efficient method for obtaining similarity data. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 26(4), 381–386 (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gower, J.C.: Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40(1), 33–51 (1975)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hill, R.C., Levenhagen, M.: Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. J. Manag. 21(6), 1057–1074 (1995)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hughes, D.L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Simintiras, A.C.: Information systems project failure–analysis of causal links using interpretive structural modelling. Prod. Plan. Control 27(16), 1313–1333 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ilyuk, V., Block, L., Faro, D.: Is it still working? task difficulty promotes a rapid wear-off bias in judgments of pharmacological products. J. Consum. Res. 41(3), 775–793 (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Imai, S.: Classification of sets of stimuli with different stimulus characteristics and numerical properties. Percept. Psychophys. 1, 48–54 (1966)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson, M.D.: Consumer choice strategies for comparing noncomparable alternatives. J. Consum. Res. 11(3), 741–753 (1984)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson, M.D., Hudson, E.J.: On the perceived usefulness of scaling techniques in market analysis. Psychol. Mark. 13(7), 653–675 (1998)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnson, M.D., Kisielius, J.: Concreteness-Abstract-Ness and the feature-Dimension distinction. Adv. Consum. Res. 12, 325–328 (1985)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Johnson, M.D., Lehmann, D.R., Fornell, C., Horne, D.R.: Attribute abstraction, feature-dimensionality, and the scaling of product similarities. Int. J. Res. Mark. 9(2), 131–147 (1992)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson, R.B.: Dialectical pluralism: a metaparadigm whose time has come. J. of Mix. Methods Res. 11(2), 156–173 (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33(7), 14–26 (2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Mental models in cognitive science. Cogn. Sci. 4(1), 71–115 (1980)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Mental models and thought. In: Holyoak, K.J., Morrison, R.G., (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, pp. 185–208 (1983)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Mental models and deduction. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5(10), 434–442 (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N., Byrne, R.M.: Conditionals: a theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychol. Rev. 109(4), 646–678 (2002)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kanwar, R., Olson, J.C., Sims, L.S.: Toward conceptualizing and measuring cognitive structures. In: Monroe, K.B., Arbor, A., (Eds.) Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, MI, pp. 122–127 (1981)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kearney, A.R., Kaplan, S.: Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: the Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM). Environ. and Behav. 29, 579–617 (1997)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Keeney, R.L.: The value of internet commerce to the customer. Manage. Sci. 45(4), 533–542 (1999)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim, K.J., Shin, D.-H.: An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Res. 25(4), 527–541 (2015)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M.: Inverse MDS: inferring dissimilarity structure from multiple item arrangements. Front. Psychol. 3, 245 (2012)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lapointe, L., Rivard, S.: A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Q. 29(3), 461–491 (2005)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A.: Why Do People Reject Technologies: A Review of User Resistance Theories Information Systems Theory, pp. 63–86. Springer, New York (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_4Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Love, E., Okada, E.M.: Construal based marketing tactics for high quality versus low price market segments. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 24(2), 172–181 (2015)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A.: The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85(2), 273–283 (2000)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    McKinsey Global Institute: The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value beyond the Hype. Market Report (2015)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Miller, G.A.: A psychological method to investigate verbal concepts. J. Math. Psychol. 6, 169–191 (1969)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Montazemi, A.R., Conrath, D.W.: The use of cognitive mapping for Information requirements analysis. MIS Q. 10(1), 45–56 (1986)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Montgomery, H.: Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. Adv. Psychol. 14, 343–369 (1983)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Moran, T.P.: Guest editor’s introduction: an applied psychology of the user. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 13(1), 1–11 (1981)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nestrud, M.A., Lawless, H.T.: Perceptual mapping of apples and cheeses using projective mapping and sorting. J. Sens. Stud. 25(3), 390–405 (2010)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ng, I.C.L., Wakenshaw, S.Y.L.: The Internet-of-Things: review and research directions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 34(1), 3–21 (2017)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Norman, D.A.: Some observations on mental models. In: Gentner, D. Stevens, A.L. (Eds.) Mental Models, pp. 7–14. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1983a)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Norman, D.A.: Design Rules based on analyses of human error. Commun. ACM, 26(4), 254–258 (1983b)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and, Expanded edn. Basic Books (AZ), New York (2013)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nosofsky, R.M.: Similarity scaling and cognitive process models. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 43, 25–53 (1992)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pagès, J.: Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley. Food Qual. Prefer. 16(7), 642–649 (2005)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pavlou, P.A., Fygenson, M.: Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q. 115–143 (2006)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ram, S.: A model of innovation resistance. In: Wallendorf, M., Anderson, P. (Eds.) ACR NA - Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14, pp. 208–212. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT (1987)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rijsdijk, S.A., Hultink, E.J.: The impact of product smartness on consumer satisfaction through product advantage, compatibility, and complexity. In: Proceedings of the 13th PDMA Research Conference, Orlando (2002)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rijsdijk, S.A., Hultink, E.J.: Honey, have you seen our hamster? consumer evaluations of autonomous domestic products. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 20(3), 204–216 (2003)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rijsdijk, S.A., Hultink, E.J.: How today’s consumers perceive tomorrow’s smart products. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 26(1), 24–42 (2009)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rijsdijk, S.A., Hultink, E.J., Diamantopoulos, A.: Product intelligence: its conceptualization, measurement and impact on consumer satisfaction. Acad. Mark. Sci. 35(3), 340–356 (2007)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Risvik, E., McEwan, J.A., Colwill, J.S., Rogers, R., Lyon, D.H.: Projective mapping: a tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Qual. Prefer. 5(4), 263–269 (1994)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Robey, D.: Diversity in information systems research: threat, promise, and responsibility. Inf. Syst. Res. 7(4), 400–408 (1996)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rogers, E.M.: New product adoption and diffusion. J. Consum. Res. 2(4), 290–301 (1976)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schiffman, S.S., Reynolds, M.L., Young, F.W.: Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods. Applications. Academic Press, New York (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Schweitzer, F., van den Hende, E.: To be or not to be in thrall to the march of smart products. Psychol. Mark. 33(10), 830–842 (2016)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Schweitzer, F., van den Hende, E.: Drivers and consequences of narrative transportation: understanding the role of stories and domain-specific skills in improving radically new products. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 34(1), 101–118 (2017)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sheth, J.N.: Psychology of innovation resistance: the Less Developed Concept (LDC) in diffusion research. Res. Mark. 4, 273–282 (1981)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Strandvik, T., Holmlund, M., Edvardsson, B.: Customer needing: a challenge for the seller offering. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 27(2), 132–141 (2012)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sugai, P.: Mapping the mind of the mobile consumer across borders: an application of the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique. Int. Mark. Rev. 22(6), 641–657 (2005)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Torgerson, W.S.: Multidimensional scaling: I. theory and method. Psychometrika 17, 401–419 (1952)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychol. Rev. 84(4), 327 (1977)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Tversky, A., Gati, I.: Studies of similarity. Cogn. Categ. 1, 79–98 (1978)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: our longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Bala, H.: Bridging the qualitative - quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q. 37(1), 21–54 (2013)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Sullivan, Y.W.: Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: an extension and illustration. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 17(7), 435 (2016)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Walker, B., Celsi, R., Olson, J.: Exploring the structural characteristics of consumers’ knowledge. In: Wallendorf, M., Anderson, P., (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14, pp. 17–21. Association for Consumer Research. Provo, UT (1987)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wedel, M., Bijmolt, T.H.: Mixed tree and spacial representations of dissimilarity judgments. J. Classif. 17(2), 243–271 (2000)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Woodside, A.G.: Editorial: sense making in marketing organizations and consumer psychology: theory and practice. Psychol. Mark. 18(5), 415–421 (2001)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Williams, M.D., Dwivedi, Y.K., Lal, B., Schwarz, A.: Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. J. Inf. Technol. 24(1), 1–10 (2009)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wittgenstein, L.: Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Wien (1918)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Zaltman, G., Coulter, R.H.: Seeing the voice of the customer: metaphor-based advertising research. J. Advert. Res. 35(4), 35–51 (1995)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zaltman, G.: Rethinking market research: putting people back. J. Mark. Res. 34(4), 424–437 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MarketingTIME Research Area, RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations