Exploring Relationship between PersonalInnovativeness, Technological Innovativeness,Gadget Lover and Technological Opinion Leadershipamong Millennials
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the existing literature by testing a model consisting of factors driving technological innovativeness and technological opinion leadership among millennials. This study aims to test (a) relationship between personal innovativeness, technological innovativeness, gadget lover and technological opinion leadership, and (b) mediating role of technological innovativeness between gadget lover and technological opinion leadership. The study indicates the following results, firstly, technological innovativeness and gadget lover have a positive and significant impact of technological opinion leadership, secondly, personal innovativeness is not positively related to technological innovativeness, and lastly technological innovativeness partially mediate the relationship between gadget lover and technological opinion leadership.
References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of
personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information
Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215
ii. Ahire, S.L.; Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996). Development and Validation of
[QM Implementation Constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23-56.
iii. Bagozzi, R. P, &Nataraajan, R. (2000). The year 2000: Looking forward.
Psychology & Marketing, 17, 1-11.
iv. Bartels, J., & Reinders, M. J. (2011). Consumer innovativeness and its correlates:
A propositional inventory for future research. Journal of Business Research,
64(6), 601-609.
v. Baumgarther, H., Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of Structural Equation
Modeling in Marketing and Consumer Research: A Review. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
vi. Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2007). Gadget lovers. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 35, 329-339.
vii. Bruner, G. C.1.1., Hensel, P.J., &James, K. E. (2005). Marketing scales handbook.
Pub: Thomson South-Western.
viii. Childers, T. L. (1986). Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion
leadership scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 184-188.
ix. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation
modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern method for business research (pp.
295-336).
x. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structures of Tests.
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-333.
xi. Deloitte. (2019). Next level of consumer growth in India in 2019 through ecommerce. Deloitte.
xii. Dijkstra, T. K., &Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path
modeling. MIS quarterly, 39(2).
xiii. Feick, L. E, & Price, L. L. (1987). Themarketmaven: A diffuser ofmarketplace
information. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 83-97.
xiv. Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1993). A validation of the goldsmith and hofacker
innovativeness scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(4), 1105-
1116.
xv. Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. FE (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39-50.
xvi. Gallagher, K., Parsons, J., & Foster, K. (2001). A tale of two studies: Replicating
advertising effectiveness and content evaluation in print on the web. Journal of
Advertising Research, 41(4), 71-81.
xvii. Geissler,G. L., & Edison, S.W. (2005).Marketmavens’ attitude toward general
technology: Implications for marketing communications. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 11(2),73-94.
xviii. Goldberg, J., Lehmann, D., Shidlovski, D., & Barak, M. (2006). The role of expert
versus social opinion leaders in new product adoption. MSI working paper.
Marketing Science Institute (Report No. 06-004).
xix. Goldsmith, E. B., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1980). Dogmatic and confidence as related
factors in evaluation of new products. Psychological Reports, 47(3), 1068-1070.
xx. Goldsmith, R. E., &Hofacker, C. FE (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209-221.
xxi. Hair, J. E, Black, B., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). London: Prentice-Hall.
xxii. Hartman, J. B., & Samra, Y. M. (2008). Impact of personal values and
innovativeness on hedonic and utilitarian aspects of web use: An empirical
study among UnitedStates teenagers. International Journal of Management,
25(1), 77-94.
xxiii. Hayes, A. E (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
xxiv. Kaka, Noshir; Madgavkar, Anu; Kshirsagar, Alok; Gupta, Rajat; Manyika, James;
Bahl,Kushe; Gupta, Shishir;. (2019). Digital India: Technology to transform
aconnected nation. McKinsey Global Institute.
xxv. Katz, E., &Lazarsfeld, P E (1955). Personal influence; the part played by people
in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
xxvi. LLazarsfeld, P. E, Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice.
NewYork: Columbia University Press.
xxvii. Leavitt, C., &Walton, J. (1975). Development ofa scale for innovativeness.
Advances in Consumer Research, 2(1), 545-552.
xxviii. Lehtonen, T. K. (2003). The domestication ofnew technologies as aset of trials.
Journal of Consumer Culture, 3, 363-385.
xxix. Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the
implementation ofnew technology. Management Science, 34(10), 1252-1265.
xxx. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. NewYork: McGraw Hill.
xxxi. Midgley, D. E, & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness— Concepts and its
measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4) , 229-242.
xxxii. Morgan Stanley. (2017). India’s Millennials. Morgan Stanley.
xxxiii. Myers, J. H., & Robertson, T. S. (1972). Dimensions of opinion leadership. Journal
of Marketing Research, 9(1), 41-46.
xxxiv. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. NewYork: Mc- Graw-Hill
xxxv. O’Leary-Kelly, S.W. and Vokurka, R.J. (1998). The Empirical Assessment of
Construct Validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 387-405.
xxxvi. Peck, J., & Childers, T. (2003). Individual differences in haptic information
processing: The “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430-
442.
xxxvii. Richins, M. L., & Root-Shaffer, T. (1988). The role of evolvement and opinion
leadership in consumer word-of-mouth: An implicitmodelmade explicit.
Association for Consumer Research, 15, 32-36.
xxxviii. Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness concepts and measurements.
Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 671-677.
xxxix. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion ofinnovations (4th edition). NewYork. The Free
Press.
xl. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York. The Free Press.
xli. Rogers, E. M., &Cartano, D. G. (1962). Methods of measuring opinion leadership.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 26 (Fall), 435-441.
xlii. Rungtusanatham, M .J. (1998). Let's not Overlook Content Validity. Decision
Line, July, 10 -13.
xliii. Shoham, A., &Pesamaa, O. (2013). Gadget loving: A test ofan integrative model.
Psychology and Marketing, 30(3), 247-262.
xliv. Shoham, A., &Ruvio, A. (2008). Opinion leaders and followers: A replication
andextension. Psychology and Marketing, 25(3), 280-297.
xlv. Thakur,R., Angriawan,A., &Summey,J.H. (2015). Technological opinion
leadership: The role of personal innovativeness, gadget love, and technological
innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 33, 1-10.
xlvi. World Economic Forum & Bain & Company. (2019). Initiative on Shaping the
Future of Consumption. World Economic Forum.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.