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.
Exploring Relationship between PersonalInnovativeness, Technological Innovativeness,Gadget Lover and Technological Opinion Leadershipamong Millennials
27 Views
17 Downloads
Published 2021-03-31
Pages 23-30
Abstract
Keywords
Technological Innovativeness
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.
✓ Citation copied to clipboard