THENEEDFORCOGNITIONANDTHEADOPTIONOFNEWTECHNOLOGY:ASTUDYOF

HOWTHEELABORATIONLIKELIHOODMODELIMPACTSDIFFUSIONOFINNOVATION

by

JEFFREYLEWIS

KARLAGOWER,COMMITTEECHAIRREGINALEWIS,COMMITTEECO-CHAIR

JIMBROWN

ATHESIS

SubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMasterofArtsinthe

DepartmentofAdvertisingandPublicRelationsintheGraduateSchoolofTheUniversityofAlabama

TUSCALOOSA,ALABAMA

2016

CopyrightJeffreyLewis2016ALLRIGHTSRESERVED

ii

ABSTRACT

TheElaborationLikelihoodModelandDiffusionofInnovationaretheoriesthat

describedecision-makingprocesses.Diffusionofinnovationexplainsthetimeittakesfor

individualstolearnaboutaninnovation,trytheinnovation,andmakethedecisiontoadopt

orrejectit.TheELMsuggestsindividualsuseadualprocessofthinking.Therouteto

persuasionchangesdependingonhowthepersonthinks.Eachroutetargetsdifferent

levelsofthinking.ThisthesisinvestigatestherelationshipbetweentheELManddiffusion

ofinnovation.

iii

DEDICATION

Iwouldliketodedicatethisthesistoeveryonewhohelpedmemakeittotheendof

thisjourney.Thisthesiswasatestofendurance.ThereweretimeswhenIwantedtoquit

andmoveontosomethingelse.Noonewhowasinvolvedletthathappen.Dr.Gower,Dr.

Lewis,Mr.Brown,andmyMom,SharonBurks,thankyou.Thisthesisisdedicatedtoyou.

iv

LISTOFABBREVIATIONSANDSYMBOLS

ELM ElaborationLikelihoodModel

p Significance

NCOG NeedforCognition

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ThisthesiswasoneofthemostdifficultprojectsI’veeverhadtotakeon.Overthe

courseofthisyear,Ilearnedalotaboutmyself.Thisthesistestedmeinsomanyways,and

thankfullyitsover.Iwouldnothavemadeitthroughthisprocesswithoutthishelpand

guidanceofmythesiscommittee.Thepeoplewhohelpedmegetthroughthisthesis

processdidn’thavetobeinvolved,buttheytookontheaddedresponsibility.Thatmeansa

lot.Thankyou.

Dr.Gower,youhelpedmesomuchgetmyresearchtogether.Iremembergoinginto

yourofficewithawildideaofbusinessexpansionandwithnoideahowtoevenbeginthis

process.Youguidedmeintherightdirection.Nomatterwhatyoualwayshadsome

wisdomtopassonandsomegreatresearchmaterialthathelpedmereachmygoal.

Dr.Lewisintroducedmetothebusinessapproachtotheresearch.Iremember

meetingDr.LewiswhenIfirststartedstudyingattheUniversityofAlabama,andbeingjust

impressedbyherbusinessexperiences.Thebreakdownofmymethodwasbasedon

researchsheconductedsomeofherotherprojects.

Mr.Brown,thethirdpersononmycommittee,wastheteacherofoneofmyfavorite

classesatAlabama.Whileinhisclasswehelpedabusinessinmyhometownproduceanew

product.WeusedprinciplesofDiffusionofinnovationfirsthand.Theclassandthe

researchheprovidedmadehimtheperfectchoicetoroundoutthecommittee.

vi

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................ii

DEDICATION..................................................................................................................iii

LISTOFABBREVIATIONSANDSYMBOLS........................................................iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................v

LISTOFTABLES..........................................................................................................vii

LISTOFILLUSTRATIONS......................................................................................viii

1.INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1

2.LITERATUREREVIEW...........................................................................................4

a.DiffusionofInnovation..........................................................................................4

b.ElaborationLikelihoodModel..........................................................................10

3.METHOD....................................................................................................................24

4.RESULTS....................................................................................................................27

5.DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................32

6.LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................36

7.CONCLUSION………................................................................................................38

REFERENCES................................................................................................................40

APPENDIXA..................................................................................................................43

APPENDIXB..................................................................................................................46

APPENDIXC..................................................................................................................50

vii

LISTOFTABLES

4.1Smartphoneownership....................................................................................28

4.2SmartphoneANOVA...........................................................................................28

4.3Tabletownership................................................................................................29

4.4TabletANOVA.......................................................................................................29

viii

LISTOFILLUSTRATIONS

2.1Rogers,FiveStagesofDiffusionofInnovation,1995..............................4

2.2Rogers,DiffusionofInnovationCurve,1995..............................................7

CHAPTER1

INTRODUCTION

ThisthesisisastudyoftherelationshipbetweenDiffusionofInnovationandthe

ElaborationLikelihoodModel(ELM).Studieshavebeenconductedusingbothconcepts,but

notmuchresearchhasputthemtogether.Thisthesiscontributestotheliteratureby

exploringtherelationshipbetweenthetwotheories.

TheELMhasbeenaroundsincethe1970s.Itisarelativelycomplextheory

describinghowattitudesformandchange.TheELMsuggeststhatindividualsprocess

informationviaoneoftworoutes:thecentralrouteandtheperipheralroute.Thecentral

routeisforhighlevelsofelaboration.Persuasioninthiscasewillbeeffectiveifitusesissue

relevantfactsandarguments.Theperipheralrouterequireslesselaboration.Factorsthat

donotdirectlyaffecttheproduct,suchasacelebrityendorsementorthecolorofthe

product,willholdmorepersuasivepower(O’Keefe,2002,p.140).

2

DiffusionofInnovationhasbeenaroundsincethe1960s.Thetheoryexplainsthe

rateatwhichpeoplelearnandmakeadecisionaboutaproduct,andhowinnovations

spreadthroughoutsociety.Thisthesisfocusesontheadoptionordecisionmakingstageof

thediffusionofinnovationandthefactorsthatmayinfluencewhetherpeoplechooseto

adopt.

Severalstudieshavebeenconductedovertheyearsthattestoneofthetheories,but

nostudieswerefoundthattestedbothtogether.Thesetwotheoriesneedtobetested

togetherbecausetheELMmayaffectthewaypeopleunderstandprocessesintheDiffusion

ofInnovation.

Thereareseveraldifferentwaysforpeopletolearnaboutaninnovation.Ifpeople

areactivelyseekinginformation,theyareelaboratingaboutwhethertoadopttheproduct.

Theinformationearlyadoptersreceivewilloftenbefromtheinnovatorsthemselves.Early

adoptersalsoformthefirstopinionsabouttheinnovationandpassthoseopinionsonto

others.Theseopinionstheearlyadaptorsform,couldpossiblyaffecttheattitudesofpeople

towardtheinnovation(Rodgers,1996).Forinstance,ifapersonlikesacelebrityandthat

celebrityusesaproduct,thepersonmightreactfavorablytowardsthatproductwithout

knowingallthefactsaboutit.Inthatcase,thereactionwouldnotbebecauseofthe

product,butbecauseofsomethingperipheraltotheproduct.

Exampleslikethesearethereasonwhythesetwotheoriesneedtobeinvestigated

together.Thedecision-makingprocessisverycomplex.Understandingwhysome

innovationscatchonwhileothersdonotwillhelpmarketersdevelopstrategiesinthe

futureandhelppredictfutureinnovationtrends.Sincetimeisthedependentvariable

whentestingdiffusionofinnovation,thereasonspeopleadopttheinnovationwillchange.

3

Themessagethatmadetheearlyadoptersadopttheinnovationwillnothavethesame

leverageoverlaggardswhowillhavedifferentreasonsforadoption.

Thisthesiswillbenefitfutureresearchersandpublicrelationspractitionersbecause

itwillhelpthemunderstandhowtocraftmessagesbasedonunderstandingthelevelof

elaboration.Thatlevelofelaborationwillleadtogreaterunderstandingofwhatandwhen

theconsumerwillmostlikelyadopt.Ifyoumatchthecorrectmessagetothereceiver’s

levelofelaboration,themessagewillmostlikelyproduceapositivereaction.

Thefollowingchapterpresentstherelevantliteratureandtheoreticalframework

forthisstudy.Thatwillbefollowedbyadescriptionofthemethod.Chapter4detailsthe

study’sresults,andChapter5discussestheresultsandtheirimplications.

4

CHAPTER2

LITERATUREREVIEW

ThisliteraturereviewwillreviewtheliteratureonDiffusionofInnovationandthe

ElaborationLikelihoodModel,thetwotheoriesthatprovidetheframeworkforthisthesis.

DiffusionofInnovationwillallowustounderstandthethoughtprocesspeopleusewhen

theydecidetoadoptnewproducts.TheElaborationLikelihoodModelwillprovidelevelsat

whichpeoplethinkaboutaparticulartopic.Togetherthesetwotheorieswillhelp

practitionersinthefuturepredictwhenpeoplewilladoptnewtechnologies.

DiffusionofInnovation

Diffusionofinnovationistheprocessbywhichpeopledecidetoadoptanew

product,practice,ordesign.Diffusionisdefinedastheprocessbywhichaninnovationis

communicatedthroughcertainchannelsovertimeamongthemembersofasocialsystem.

Innovationisthenewidea,process,orobjectthatisupforadoption(Rogers,1995p.11).

Figure2.1FiveStagesintheDecisionInnovationprocess.Thisfigureischartdepictingthe

5

decisionmakingportionofDiffusionofInnovation.

Innovationwillalwaysbringuncertainty.Relativeadvantage,compatibility,

complexity,testability,andabilitytoobservetheresultsarefactorsthatinfluencethe

adoptionofinnovation(Rogers,1995).Figure2.1isanillustrationofthedecisionof

innovationprocess.Relativeadvantageanswersthequestion,howisthisbetterthanwhatI

haveorwhatIamdoingnow?Iftheinnovationprovestodeliverabetterresult,thenthe

personwillmovetothenextcategory,compatibility.Thequestion,doesthisinnovation

workforme,willbeanswered.Forexample,avillageinIndiawasintroducedtoanew

strainofcorn.Thecornyieldedmoreperharvestandhadashorterharvesttime,butthe

villagersdecidednottoadoptthenewstrainbecausetheydidnotlikethetaste(Rodgers,

1995).Thus,althoughthecornhadarelativeadvantageoverthetraditionalstrainofcorn,

itfailedthecompatibilitytest,andthepeoplerejectedit.

Thethirdtestiscomplexity.Thistestanswersthequestion,isthiswayeasierthan

whatIamdoingnow?Ifthenewwayismorecomplex,butdeliversaresultthatisnot

significantlybetternotonlywillitfailthecomplexitytest,itwillalsoreducetheadvantage

thatistobegained.Thefourthtestis,canItestitmyself?Individualsaremorelikelyto

adoptaproducttheycantryoutthemselves.Thatleadstothefinaltest,observation.Can

youobservetheeffectsoftheinnovation?Understandingthesecharacteristicshelps

explaintherateatwhichaninnovationisadoptedorrejected.Aninnovationthatmeetsthe

adopter’sexpectationsintheseareasismorelikelytobeadopted.

Diffusionisthecommunicationofinformationaboutinnovationsthroughdifferent

channels.Eventhoughmassmediachannelsaremoreeffectiveatreachinglargenumbers

ofpeople,aninterpersonalexchangeismoreeffectivewhenitcomestopersuading

6

someonetotryanewproduct(Roger,1995).Rogersalsosuggeststhatpersuading

someonetotryanewproductisasocialprocess.Peoplearemorelikelytoadoptanidea

fromsomeonewhohasinfluencedthembefore.

Peoplearealsomorelikelytobepersuadedbypeoplewhoarelikethem.This

makescommunicationeasierforthepeopleinvolved,andthemessagewillbebetter

perceived.Theideathatpeopleareattractedtopeoplelikethemiscalledinterpersonal

attraction(Rogers,1995).Thesepeopleshareacommonbondsuchthattheintroduction

ofnewideaswilllikelyhaveagreaterchanceofnotbeingrejected.

Theoppositeoccurswhenthecommunicationisbetweentwopeoplewhodonot

sharethatinterpersonalattraction.Whenpeoplearedistantforreasonssuchassocial

statusoreducation,itmakesitharderforpeopletocommunicate.Thisdifferencein

communicationwillmaketheindividualsinvolvedfeeluncomfortableandtheexchangeof

ideasandpersuasionwillmostlikelyendinfailure.Atthesametime,however,innovations

tendtocomefromanoutsidesourceasopposedtosmallinner-circles.Sincemostpeople

arenotasopentonewideasthatarenottheirs,thechallengeliesinfindingcommon

groundsothatallpartiesinvolvedwillfeelcomfortableandtheexchangeofideascanbea

success.

Timeisaveryimportantaspectofdiffusionofinnovation.Timeisbrokenintothree

elementswhenitcomestotheadoptionofanewinnovation.Thereisthetimethatpasses

fromlearningabouttheinnovationuntiladecisionregardingitismade;thepointatwhich

anindividualdecidestoadoptinrelationtootheradopters;andtherateofadoption

(Rogers,1995;Effimova,Kuznetasova,&Ramanauskas,2014).Usingthesecriteria,the

researchercandecidetherateatwhichtheinnovationwasadopted.

7

Theprocessbywhichapersonlearnsoftheinnovation,formsanopinion,decidesto

adoptorreject,usestheinnovation,andmakesaconfirmationofthedecisioniscalledthe

innovation-decisionprocess(Rogers,1995;Effimova,Kuznetasova,&Ramanauskas,2014).

Therearefivestagestothisprocess:knowledge,persuasion,decision,implementation,and

confirmation.Duringthisprocess,peoplesearchforandcomprehendtheinformation

aboutthenewproductinanattempttodecreasetheiruncertaintylevelaboutthe

innovation.

Researcherscanusethetimeofadoptionfromtheinnovation-decisionprocessand

applyittoatimeline.Thistimelineputsconsumersintoacategorybasedontimeof

adoption.Itbreaksdownintofivecategories:innovators,earlyadaptors,earlymajority,

latemajority,andlaggards.Innovatorstendtoberisktakersandcancopewithhighlevels

ofuncertainty,whilelaggardstendtorelyheavilyonpersonalrelationshipsforadoption.

Insomecases,laggardsareforcedintoadoptionbecausetheproducttheycurrentlyare

usingisphasedoutbecauseoftheinnovation(Rogers,1995).Thefigurebelowillustrates

theproductslifecycleandadoptionrates.

8

Figure2.2ProductLifeCycle&AdoptionRate.Thisfigureischartdepictinglifecycleand

adoptionrateofDiffusionofInnovation.

Therateofadoptionisusuallyplacedonan“S”curvewithtimebeingthedependent

variableandtheadoptionratebeingtheindependent.Innovationsthathavecharacteristics

thatmeetthepublic’sexpectationstendtogetadoptedfaster,resultinginasteepercurve.

Therateofadoptionusuallyslowsdownafterthemajorityadoptsit.

Socialsystemsareheavyinfluencersoverhowdiffusionofinnovationworks.Social

groupsaredefinedasaninterrelatedgroupthatcomestogethertosolveaproblemand

accomplishgoals(Rogers,1995).Thepresenceofopinionleadersandchangeagents

shouldbeaddressedwhenitcomestochangingattitudes.

Understandinghowthesocialstructureissetupisimportantwhenitcomestohow

informationisspread.Ifthereisahierarchicalsysteminplace,peopletendtolooktotheir

superiorsforinformation.Astheorganizationgetsbrokendownfurther,itbecomesmore

commontorunintosmallergroupsorcliques.Becausethesegroupsoflike-mindedpeople

form,itiseasiertostudyandpredictbehaviors(Rogers.1995p.24).Studiesshowthat

diffusionofinnovationcanbehinderedorencourageddependingonthesociety

surroundingtheindividuals.Peoplewhoareinanareawheretheyareexposedtocertain

technologyaremorelikelytoadopt;whereas,peoplewhosesurroundingsdonotusethat

innovationarelesslikelytoadopt(Rogers,1995).

Socialnormscanworkasabarriertoinnovation(Rogers,1995p.26).Newideasare

likelytogetrejectedbecausetheydonotfitthesocialnorm.Innovatorsareoften

perceivedasdifferent,andthustheyareconsideredtohavelowcredibilityandlittle

9

persuasivepower(Rogers,1995).Opinionleaders,ontheotherhand,canbecomeavery

valuableassetwhenitcomestogeneratingpositiveattitudes.

Anopinionleaderissomeonewhoisabletoinfluenceotherindividuals’attitudesor

behaviorpatternswithrelativefrequency(Rogers,1995p.27).Thispositionisusually

earnedbytheperson’sexpertiseinacertainarea,socialaccessibility,andconformitywith

systemnorms(Rogers,1995).Whenanopinionleaderexpressesinterest,itislikelyothers

willfollowsuit.Opinionleadersholdan“edge”overtheirfollowersforthreereasons:they

aremoreexposedtoexternalformsofcommunication;theyholdsomedegreeofelevated

socialstatus;andtheyaremoreinnovative(Rogers,1995).Forthesereasons,whenchange

needstooccur,theyareprimecandidatesforexpressingdifferentideas.

Beforechangeoccurs,therewillbeoppositiontoit,andtherearecertain

circumstanceswhereopinionleaderslosetheir“edge.”Iftheopinionleadersloserespect

orcredibilityamongthesocialnetwork,iftheiridealsdeviatetoofarfromthesocialnorms

andfollowersstarttofeelalienated,ortheyareoverusedandbecomewornout,theymay

fallfromprominence(Rogers,1995p.27).Followersmightstarttoviewthemasworking

forthechangeagentandfeelasthoughtheopinionisbeinginfluencedbyanoutside

presence.Thatinturnwillcausetheopinionleadertoloseinfluenceandcredibilityand

hinderhisorherabilitytopersuade.

Insummary,whenaninnovationfirstcomesintoexistence,thecommunicator

needstoreducethedegreeofuncertaintyamongpeople.Withmostinnovations,thereis

someadvantagetobegainedfromadoption.Understandingthelimitationsandhowthe

innovationisdifferentisessentialwhenitcomestogeneratingpositiveattitudes.

10

Decreasingthelevelofuncertaintyclosesthegapandhelpspeoplebetter

understandtheinnovation.Peoplehavetofirsttrytheproductinordertoanswerifthe

innovationpossessesthefivebasiccharacteristicsofinnovation:relativeadvantage,

compatibility,complexity,trialability,andobservability,whichacttogetherclosingthe

degreeofuncertainty.Innovationsthattestwellwiththefivecharacteristicsofinnovation

tendtogetadoptedatamorerapidpacethaninnovationsthatdonot.

Thebestwaytogetmorepeopletoadoptaninnovationistounderstandthesocial

structuresofthesociety.Eachstructurehasopinionleadersandcliquesofpeoplewhocan

bepersuaded.Opinionleadershavetheabilitytoswayopinionsinthedirectionofchange.

Theyarethoughttobeexpertsinaparticulararea,andsincetheyarestillconsideredtobe

partofsociety,theyareconsideredtobelikemindedaswell

Finally,understandingthedecisiontoadoptorrejectiscrucialtothistheory.

Peopledecidewhethertoadoptaninnovationfornumerousreasons.Attitudestowardsthe

innovationhaveadirecteffectontherateatwhichtheinnovationgetsadopted.

ElaborationLikelihoodModel

TheElaborationLikelihoodModelusesadualprocessapproachforunderstanding

socialinformationprocessing(Cacioppo,Petty,Kao,&Rodriguez,1986).Thetworoutes

arecentralandperipheral.Theroutesvaryinthelevelofelaboration.Peoplewhospend

timeelaboratingonatopicareprocessingtheinformationviathecentralroute.Arguments

thatwillprovetobepersuasiveforthesepeoplewilldealdirectlywiththetopicathand.

Peripheralcuesarethingsthataffectthewaythepersonfeelsabouttheissuebutmightnot

bedirectlyassociatedwithit.Thingslikepresenterattractivenessorpreconceived

attitudesfallunderthiscategory(Cacioppo,Petty,Kao,&Rodriguez,1986).

11

Elaborationoccurswhensomeoneengagesinissue-relevantthinking.Generally,

themoreinvolvedwithaparticulartopicapersonis,themorerelevanttheissueistothe

personandthedeeperhisorherlevelofthinkingaboutitis(Cacioppo,Petty,Kao,&

Rodriguez,1986).Thatmeansthispersonwillhaveahigherlevelofinvolvementbecause

thatpersonspentmoretimeelaboratingonthetopic.Themessagewillvarydependingon

theperson’swillingnessandabilitytoelaborateonthetopic.Bymatchingtheright

messagetotheproperrouteoftheELM,persuaderswillensurethesuccessofapositive

responsefromthereceiver(Cacioppo,Petty,Kao,&Rodriguez,1986).

Thetypeofpeoplewhowouldbepersuadedbythecentralroutearethosewhoare

moreinvolvedwiththeissuebecausetheytypicallyhaveahighlevelofelaboration.In

ordertopersuadethesepeople,messagesneedtoencourageadeeperlevelofissue-

relevantthinking.High-topicrelevanceiswhenthetopicorissueaffectsthatperson

directly.Peoplewhohavehigh-topicrelevancearemorelikelytohaveknowledgeofthe

issueandbeaffectedbytheoutcomeofthedecision.Thequalityofthearguments

containedinthemessagewillrendermoreofaresponsefromthereceiverswhowillnotbe

heavilyinfluencedbythecommunicator’sexpertise(O’Keefe,2002,p.140).

Whenelaborationislow,theperipheralapproachshouldbeused.Thisoccurswhen

thereceiverusesasimpleruletomakeadecision.Inotherwords,thereceiverisrelyingon

peripheralcues(O’Keefe,2002,p.140).Theimportanceofperipheralcuesincreasesasthe

levelofelaborationdecreases.Thepersondidnotthinkabouttheproductbasedonfacts

butonanattitudetowardanoutsidefactor.Thedecisionwasmadewithlittleelaboration.

Otherperipheralcuesincludepreconceivedattitudes,physicalattractiveness,andfeelings

12

towardsthetopic.Inthesecases,thereceiverusedaperipheralcuesuchasanattitudeand

beliefratherthanissue-relevantthinking(O’Keefe,2002).

Thereisatradeoffintheprocess,however.Whenthethoughtprocessishigh,

strongargumentsholdmorepersuasivepower.Theperson’sexpertisedoesnotmatter,but

themessagesdo.Ifthemessagesholdupagainststrongcounterarguments,thenthe

receiverwithahighlevelofelaborationwillreactpositivelytowardsthemessages

(O’Keefe,2002).Astheelaborationlevelsdecreasesodoesthepersuasivepowerof

argumentstrength.Inthatcase,communicatorexpertiseismoreofapersuasivefactor.The

personusingperipheralcuesdoesnotcareaboutthefactsbutcaresmoreaboutthesource.

Ifthesourceisdeemedcredible,thereceiverwillnotargueandwillbemorelikelytobe

persuadedbyinformationfromthesource.

Understandingthelevelofinvolvementisaveryimportantconceptwhenmoving

ontotherestoftheELMtheory.Twofactorsaffectthedegreetowhichpeopleelaborate

whenmakingadecision.Thosefactorsarepersonalrelevanceandneedforcognition

(O’Keefe,2002).Personalrelevanceplaysaroleinthemotivationlevelsoftheperson,

becauseifapersonisinvolvedwiththetopicheorshewillbemorewillingtoelaborateon

thatissue.Byansweringthequestion,“Isthisissuerelevanttothereceiver?”theperson

communicatingthemessagewilllearnhowrelevantthistopicistotheperson(O’Keefe,

2002,p.141).Mostofthetime,ifthetopicisrelevanttothereceiver,heorshewillspend

moretimeelaborating.Themoretimespentelaborating,themorerelevantthetopic.This

allowsforamorecentralizedapproachwiththemessages.Butitisnotalwaystrue.A

personcouldhaveanissuethatisrelevanttohimorher,butnotimportant.Sincethelevel

ofimportanceisrelativelylow,heorshemaynottakeastandontheissue.Thismeansthe

13

elaborationlevelcouldbelow(O’Keefe,2002,p.141).Thepersonmaynotwanttoputthe

effortintoarguethepointbecausetheoutcomemaynotbeworththetimespentarguing

it.

Aperson’sabilitytoelaboratecanbeaffectedbydistractionandpriorknowledge.

Distractionsareanystimulusthatcandrawtheviewers’attentionawayfromthe

persuasivemessage.(O’Keefe,2002,p.143)Thiscanworkpositivelyornegatively

dependingontheperspective.Ifthereceiverwouldnormallyactfavorablytowardsthe

messagebutcannotgetthefulleffectofthemessagesbecauseofthedistraction,the

likelihoodthatthepersuasionwillbesuccessfulissignificantlyreduced.Thismeansthat

thedistractionwasasuccessbecausetheattentionwasdrawnawayfromtheoriginal

message(O’Keefe,2002;Kupor&Tormala,2015).Distractionsalsocanworknegatively.

Theytendtodecreasetheeffectivenessofcounter-attitudinalmessagescontainingstrong

argumentsandincreasetheeffectivenessofcounter-attitudinalmessagesinweak

arguments(O’Keefe,2002;Kupor&Tormala,2015).

Priorknowledgeiswhatsomeoneknowsbeforetheyareexposedtothemessage.

Themoretheyknowabouttheissue,themoretheywillbeabletoengageinissue-relevant

thinking(O’Keefe,2002,p.144,145).Insuchcases,theeffectivenessofperipheralcuesis

decreased.

Insummary,apersonwhoengagesinhighelaborationwillmorelikelybe

persuadedbythecentralapproach.Elaborationvalenceplaysacriticalroleinthisprocess.

Whenelaborationishigh,persuasiveeffectswilldependonthepredominantvalence,

whetherpositiveornegative,ofthereceiver’sissue-relevantthoughts(O’Keefe,2002,p.

145).Ifthepersonreceivesamessageandheorshethinksinapositivewayaboutthe

14

issue,thepersonwillmorelikelyreactfavorably.Thismessagecanbeconsidered

successful.

Valanceelaborationisinfluencedbythestrengthofthemessageandtheattitudinal

direction.Thereceiver’sinitialattitudeandthemessage’sadvocatedposition,considered

jointly,willsurelyinfluencethevalenceofelaboration(O’Keefe,2002,p.146).The

messageisconsideredpro-attitudinalifthereceiveralreadysupportsthepositionbeing

presented,inwhichcase,heorshewillbemorelikelytoactfavorablytowardsthe

position.Theoppositehappenswhenamessageiscounter-attitudinal.Inmostcases,this

styleofmessagingprovokesanegativereaction;however,therearesomeoccasionswhen

apersoncanbepersuadedbyacounter-attitudinalmessage.

Argumentstrengthisveryimportantwhenitcomestoelaboration.Howthisworks

iswhenasupportedpositioncanwithstandcriticism.Thereceiverwillreactfavorablyif

theargumentholds(O’Keefe,2002;Kwon&Nayakankuppam,2015).Heavyelaboration

mustoccurforthistotakeeffect,becausethereceiverhastoengageinissue-relevant

thinking.Theargumentmustcontainpowerfulsupportingargumentsandfacts.Ifthe

qualityofthesupportedpositionisstrong,itwillserveitspurpose.Iftheargumentisweak,

itwillbecounterproductive.

Whentheelaborationlevelislow,theperipheralrouteshouldbetargeted.Instead

ofusingissue-relevantthinking,peripheralcuesareusedtomakedecisions.Theseare

processesthatrequirelittlethinking.O’Keefesays“Theinfluenceofperipheralcuesshould

begreaterunderconditionsoflowelaborationlikelihoodorunderconditionsinwhichthe

cueisrelativelymoresilent”(O’Keefe,2002,p.148).Ifthereceiverdoeslessthinking,the

importanceofperipheralcuesgrows.

15

Credibility,liking,andconsensusarethethreemaintypesofheuristicprincipalsor

“decisionrules”(O’Keefe,2002,p.148).Thefirstiscredibility.Thisishowtrustworthythe

sourceisbelievedtobe.Thepersuasivepowerinthisprinciplecomesfromwhenthe

communicatorissomeonewhoisbelievedtobeanexpertoratrustedsourceforthat

particularposition.Peoplewhoarereceivingthismessagestarttoformtheiropinion

basedonsomeoneelse’sopinionratherthanelaboratingonthetopicthemselves.The

communicatorformed,orwasabiginfluenceon,thereceiver’sopinion(O’Keefe,2002,

p.148).Thustheindividualsreceivingthemessagemadetheirdecisionbasedonhowmuch

theytrustedthecommunicator.Inthiscase,thecredibilityofthecommunicatorholdsthe

persuasivepower.

Thesecondtypeofheuristicisliking.Thereceiversarepersuadedintoabelief

basedonwhethertheylikethecommunicator.Thefactthattheylikeacertain

communicatoroveranotherwillcausethereceiverstoshowfavoritism.Ideasand

argumentscomingfromadislikedsourcewilllikelygetdiscardedorignored(O’Keefe,

2002).

Thebeliefthat“ifotherpeoplebelieveit,thenitisprobablytrue”(O’Keefe,2002,

p.150)isaprimeexampleofconsensusheuristics.Ifthecrowdshowsdisapprovalofa

topic,itislesslikelythatanindividualwillstepupandshowapproval.Ineachcaseof

heuristics,thereceiversdonotengageinissuerelevantthinking.Insteadtheyrelyonan

outsidesourcetomakeadecision.

Therearethreemaindifficultiesthatcanbeexperiencedwhendealingwiththe

ELM.Thefirstisthattherearetworoutesthatcanbetaken.Thechoiceofroutedepends

onthereceiver.Withhighelaboration,thecentralroutewouldprovetobemore

16

persuasive,andwithlowelaboration,theperipheralroutewouldbetheproperapproach.

Thatpointleadstothesecondcomplexity,whichistheexchangebetweenelaboration

valenceandperipheralcuesasinfluencesonpersuasion.Understandingthattrade-offisa

verycomplicatedprocess.Asapersonelaboratesmore,theeffectsofperipheralcues

decline.Thismeansthecentralizedapproachwouldstarttohaveagreatereffectbecause

peoplewillpaymoreattentiontoargumentsandfactsdealingwiththeissue(O’Keefe,

2002,p.151).Ontheotherhand,whenthepersonisnotelaboratingasmuch,the

techniquesusedinamorecentralizedapproachwillhavelessofaneffect.Peripheralcues

suchascommunicatorexpertise,iftheylikethecommunicator,andiftheaudienceasa

wholelikestheissue,willdomoretopersuadethereceivers.

Thethirdcomplicationwouldbethatvariablescouldplaymultiplerolesin

persuasion.TheELMsuggeststhatavariablemightinfluencepersuasioninthreewaysby

possiblyinfluencingthedegreeofelaboration.Inadditionthevariablescouldserveasa

peripheralcuewhenintendedtobeacentralcue,anditmightinfluencethevalenceof

elaboration.(O’Keefe,2002,p.151-152).Forexample,themessagelengthcouldplayarole

inhowthemessagecomesacross.Someideasarecomplicatedandneedalonger

explanation.Inthesecases,ifthemessagewerenotaslong,somepeoplewouldnottake

themessageasseriouslyastheyshouldanddiscardit.ThesecondexampleO’Keefe(2002)

usesisaboutattractiveness.Ifthespeakerisattractive,thatcanserveasadistractionand

takeawayfromthemessage.Italsocantriggermoreperipheralcuesbyincreasingthe

levelatwhichthereceiverslikethecommunicator.Thiscouldworkasanadvantage

becausethiscouldhelpencourageafavorableopiniontowardstheissue(O’Keefe,2002,p.

17

152).Thesefactorsarerelativelyunpredictablebecauseofthebroadrangeofwaysthe

communicatorandthemessagecanbereceived.

Thereareconsequencestothedifferentroutesofpersuasion,aswell.TheELM

suggeststhatwithvariationsintheamountofelaborationtherearecorresponding

variationsinthecharacterofthepersuasiveoutcomesaffected(O’Keefe,2002,p.153).

AccordingtoO’Keefe(2002),whenattitudesareformedusinghighelaboration,they“will

displaygreatertemporalpersistence,bemorepredictiveofintentionsandsubsequent

behaviors,andbemoreresistanttocounterproductivebehaviors”(p.153).Similarly,

CacioppoandPetty(1986)foundthatintentionsandattitudeswerestronglycorrelated

whentheywereformedinsituationswheretherewasahighlevelofpersonalrelevance.

O’Keefe(2002)reinforcestheimportanceofargumentstrength.Heacknowledges

thattherearesomeconflictswiththeELMbutnotesthatitstillprovesconsistentwhenit

comestohighlevelsofelaboration.WhenargumentqualityisoperationalizedastheELM

hasdefinedit,argumentqualityvariationscanbethoughtofasprovidingnothingmore

thanameansofindirectlyassessingtheamountofelaborationthathasoccurred(O’Keefe,

2002).Argumentswithhigh-argumentstrengthshouldbedesignedtowithstandcriticism.

Whenpeopleelaborateontheissue,theywillmorelikelyquestionthearguments.When

rebuttalsaremadetowardsasupportedposition,astrongargumentwillhold.Whena

high-levelargumentholds,itprovestobemorepersuasive.

Overtheyears,severalresearchershavetestedELM.Mostoftheresearchhasbeen

consistentwithCacioppo&Petty’s.Foramessagetoachievethedesiredeffect,the

person’slevelofelaborationneedstobedetermined.Peoplecanhavedifferentlevelsof

elaboration.Theideaistotrytomatchthemessagetothelevelofelaboration.Ifaperson

18

caresaboutthetopicbuthardfactsaretoointenseforthem,thismightnotrenderthe

desiredreaction.Thesamepersoncouldcareaboutthesametopicenoughtowhere

peripheralcueswillnotbeeffective.

ChenandLee(2008)conductedresearchthatinvestigatedpersonalitytraitsand

onlineshopping.Accordingtotheirresearch,beliefsareformedwhentheperson

accumulatesknowledgeabouttheattributesorcapabilitiesoftheobject.Theyfoundthree

componentstothecentralrouteofELM:cognition,affect,andbehavior(Chen&Lee,2008).

Theywentontostatethatperipheralrouteswouldbebetterservediftheorderofthe

componentswererearrangedtoattitude,behavior,andcognition(Chen&Lee,2008).This

suggeststhatperipheralcuesarestimulatedbyemotionandactionratherthanreason.

ChenandLeealsoinvestigatedthreecomponentsbelievedtoinfluenceattitudes

towardtheproductinacomputer-mediatedsetting.Thefirstcomponentwasthe

attractivenessofthewebsite,speedandfunctionofthesite;andavailabilityofinformation

ontheproductsuchassize,colorandinventory(Chen&Lee,2008).Thiscomponentis

targetedtoacentralapproach.Thenexttwocomponentsaretargetedmoretowards

peripheralcues.Theshoppingvalueperceivedbythecustomeristhesecondcomponent

(Chen&Lee,2008).Thisanswersthequestion,didthecustomersachievetheirgoalsofthe

shoppingtrip(Chen&Lee,2008).Thefinalcomponentwas,didtheyenjoytheshopping

process(Chen&Lee,2008).Someconsumerspurchaseproductsbecauseitmakesthem

happy,andtheyhavefunacquiringnewthings.Theresearchersbelievedtherewouldbea

correlationbetweenhowthemessagesfromthewebsitearereceivedandtheemotional

arousaleachreceivergetswhileonlineshopping.Theywrote,“consumerswhoperceived

higherlevelsofhedonicandexperientialmessagesonthewebsitetendtohavehigher

19

levelsofaffectiveresponsesandperceivedhigherlevelsofhedonicvalue”(Chen&Lee,

2008).

Intheirinvestigations,ChenandLee(2008)foundtheresultstobeconsistentwith

previousstudies.Theysuggestedthatutilitarianvalues,howusefulorpracticaltheyfound

thewebsitetobe,assistedwiththeplanningtopurchase.Theyalsomentionedthat

websitesshouldofferproductsthatcomplementeachotherforfunction(Chen&Lee,

2008).Inotherwords,iftheuserfoundthewebsiteeasytonavigate,itwaseasytoplan

futurepurchases.Contentthattargetedperipheralcuesonthewebsitehadasignificantly

positiveimpactonthehedonicvalues,howpleasurabletheconsumerfoundtheshopping

experiencetobe(Chen&Lee,2008).Theimpactofpreconceivedbeliefsdidnothavea

significantimpactonattitudestowardsthewebsite.However,peripheralcuesmighthave

indirectlyinfluencedattitudesandtrustthroughthecustomer’sperceivedhedonicvalue

(Chen&Lee,2008).Bothutilitarianandhedonicvaluessignificantlyimpactedattitudes

towardsthewebsitebutdidnothaveanyinfluenceonhowmuchcustomerstrustedonline

shopping(Chen&Lee,2008).Whenitcametotheissueoftrustlevelsofonlineshopping,

theyfoundthatitsignificantlyaffectedthewaycustomersapproachedthewebsiteina

positivedirection(Chen&Lee,2008).Inconclusion,itwasacombinationofthingsthat

contributedtoinfluenceconsumerattitudestowardwebsites.

Contributiontotheliterature.

ThisthesiswilluseprinciplesfromtheElaborationLikelihoodModelandapplyitto

DiffusionofInnovationTheory.Afterreadingtheliteratureonboththetheoryandthe

model,itissafetosaythatwhenpeoplechoosetoadoptanewinnovation,theyadopt

becausetheirneedsaremet.PersuasionoccursonmanylevelsintheELM.By

20

understandingthedegreetowhichapersonelaboratesonatopic,communicatorswillbe

abletochoosethecorrectformofcommunicationattherighttimeforthepersonwhowill

potentiallyadopttheirinnovation.

ThisthesiswillcontributetotheliteratureonbothELManddiffusionofinnovation.

Eachlevelofthedecisionprocessofdiffusionofinnovationrequiressomelevelof

involvementfromthepotentialadopter.Leveloneofdiffusionofinnovationisknowledge.

Howdopeoplelearnabouttheproduct?Wheredidtheyhearaboutitfirst?Isthe

innovationimportanttothem?Ifpeopleareactivelylookingforthatproductandwantto

findoutmoreinformationaboutit,theywillhavearelativelyhighlevelofinvolvement

whenmakingadecisionaboutthatproduct.Forexample,ifpeoplewanttoimprovetheir

movie-watchingexperience,theywillactivelysearchfornewproductsthatwillimprove

theirhome-movieexperience.TheywillfindaproductlikeBlu-rayandwanttoreadmore

aboutit.TheywillfirstdiscoverthatBlu-raywillimprovetheirhome-theaterexperience

byallowingthemtohaveahighdefinitionpicture.Theymayactivelylookatvideosof

expertsexplainingtheinnovation,inadditiontoreadingarticlesabouttheinnovation.If

thesepeopleputthatmucheffortintolearningabouttheproduct,theywillmostlikely

haveahighlevelofinvolvement.Thisleadstotheideathatifindividualsarewillingtodo

researchintoanewinnovation,theywillhaveahigherlevelofelaboration.If,ontheother

hand,peoplelearnabouttheinnovationfrompeers,theirlevelofelaborationwillbelower.

SiriusXMradioandtraditionalAM/FMradioareexamplesofthis.WithSiriusXM

radio,thepersoncanlistentothesamestationacrosstheUnitedStatesandCanada.With

traditionalradio,thelistenerhastochangethestationdependingonlocation.Two

argumentsthatcanbemadeforSiriusXMisthatlistenerscanhavethesameradiostations

21

nomatterhowfartheytravel.Thesecondargumentwouldbe,thereareveryfeworno

commercials.Forpeoplewhospendalotoftimeintheirvehicle,theseargumentscould

persuadethembecausetheypointouttwosolutionstocomplaintsabouttraditionalradio.

Aperipheralapproachtopersuasionwouldbeifpeopleadoptthisservicebecauseitcomes

withthevehicle.Theytriedtheservicebecauseitwasfree.Thelevelofelaborationisvery

lowbecausethedecisiontoadoptwasalreadymadeforthem.

Forthepurposeofthisthesis,Iwilltestthedecisionstage.Thedecisionstageisthe

mostimportantstagebecausethisiswheretheinnovationgetsadoptedorrejected.

ReferringbacktotheXMradioexample,thepersonmightliketheservicebutchoosesto

rejecttheinnovationbecauseofthesubscriptionfee.Thisstageistheresultoftheprevious

twostages.Thisthesiswilladdtotheliteraturebyseekingtobetterunderstandtheroute

ofpersuasionusedforadoptionandtheplatformforunderstandinglevelsofelaboration.

Researchquestions

BecauseinvestigationisneededtounderstandtherelationshipbetweentheELM

anddiffusionofinnovation,researchquestionshavebeendeveloped.Notethatresearch

questionsareusedratherthanhypothesesbecausethereisalackofliteraturethat

addressesthesetwotheoriestogether.Thefirstissueistheneedforcognitionandproduct

ownership.Theliteraturesuggeststhatpeoplewhohaveahigherneedforcognitionwill

tendtobepersuadedbyhardfacts.Theirneedforgreatermentalstimulationwhenmaking

adecisionaboutaproductwillleadthemtoidentifywithargumentsbasedonfacts.These

peoplewillactivelyresearchtheseproductsandwillbemorelikelytopurchasenew

technologies.Theunderstandingofhowpeopleareexpectedtoreacttocentralcues

providesthefirstresearchquestion:

22

RQ1:Aretheparticipantswhoidentifythemselvesashavingahighneedfor

cognitionmorelikelytopurchaseproductsfirstandbeconsideredearlyadopters?

Theliteraturesuggeststhatparticipantswhoselevelsofcognitionarenotashigh

willnotreactfavorablytowardsmessagesdirectedtowardsthecentralroute.Afactorthat

isnotdirectlyassociatedwiththeinnovation,suchaswhatpeersorreviewsofthe

productssay,holdspersuasivepower,butnotasmuchasinformationgatheredfrom

personalresearch.Thus,theearlymajoritymayhaveahighneedforcognitionbutnotas

highasearlyadopters.Researchquestiontwocanbeformedthus:

RQ2:Willparticipantswhoidentifythemselvesashavingalowerneedforcognition

thantheearlyadoptersadoptproductsonthefirsthalfofthediffusioncurveand

likelybeconsideredtheearlymajority?

Theliteraturesuggeststhatthelaterpeoplechoosetoadoptanewinnovationthe

moretheyarepersuadedbyperipheralcues.Thesepeoplewilldosomeresearch,butmost

oftheknowledgecollectedwillbefromsourcessuchaspeers.Alsoatthispointinthe

innovationcurvemoreoutsidevariables,suchasvariationandprice,willaffectthe

decision-makingprocess.Iftheparticipantsidentifythemselvesashavingalowneedfor

cognition,theyaremorelikelytoadopttheproductonthesecondhalfofthediffusion

curve.Thus,thefollowingresearchquestionisputforward:

RQ3:Willparticipantswhoidentifythemselvesashavingalowneedforcognition

adoptproductsonthesecondhalfofthediffusioncurveandmorelikelybe

consideredlatemajority?

Thepeoplewhotestthelowestontheneedforcognitionscale,willtendtobe

laggards.Thesepeopleusuallyadopttheproductbecausetheyhaveto.Thecentralrouteis

23

notusedatall.Reasonssuchasthediscontinuationoftheircurrentproductorserviceor

aninnovationbeingdeemedobsoletearethemostpersuasive.Thus,thefollowingresearch

questioncanbeidentified:

RQ4:Willtheparticipantswhoidentifythemselvesashavingthelowestneedfor

cognitionbethelasttoadoptnewproducts?

24

CHAPTER3

METHOD

Thepurposeofthisthesisistoclassifypeoplebasedonprinciplesofdiffusionof

innovationincombinationwithprinciplesoftheELM.Thegoalistofigureoutwhether

peoplewithahighneedforcognitionadoptproductsearlierthanthosewhodonothavea

highneedforcognition.Anonlinesurveywasusedtoanswertheresearchquestions.An

onlinesurveywasthemostappropriatemethodtouseinthisstudy,becauseitallowedthe

researchertomatchlevelsofneedforcognition(elaboration)andtechnologiesadoptedto

measuretheresults.

PopulationandSample

TheparticipantswerestudentsfromTheUniversityAlabamabetweentheagesof

19and25.Theaveragelevelofeducationweresomecollegeeducationtoacompleted

bachelor’sdegree.

Questionnaire

Thequestionnaireconsistedof18personalityquestions,followedbyatechnology

ownershipsurvey.Thefirstsectionofthequestionnairewasthe18-itemneed-for-

cognitionscale.TheEfficientAssessmentofNeedforCognitionisaquestionnairedesigned

byCacioppo,Petty,andKao(1984),whichassessesthelevelsatwhichpeoplethinkabout

topics.Theparticipantswereaskedtorespondtostatementsona7-pointlikertscale,

rangingfrom(-3)stronglydisagreeto(+3)stronglyagree.Thisscaleisusedtomeasurethe

degreetowhichparticipantsliketoelaboratebeforemakingadecision.Thequestionsare

listedinAppendixA.

25

Aftertheparticipantsansweredtheneedforcognitionquestions,theywereaskeda

seriesofquestionsabouttechnologyproductownership.Thethreecategoriesaskedabout

weresmartphones,tablets,andgamingconsoles.Thesethreecategorieswerechosen

becausethetimeframebetweeneachtechnologicaladvancementgivesusarealistictime

framewithwhichtomeasureadoptionrates.Whilethephonesandtabletsupgradeand

changeeachyear,gamingconsolesdonot.Inthegamingindustrytheadvancementsare

markedbygenerations.Eachgenerationbeginswhenoneofthetopmanufacturers

(Nintendo,Microsoft,orSony)releasesanewconsole.Eachgenerationlastsfourtoeight

years.Thereisatimeframethatconsumershavetotransitionbeforebeingforcedtobuy

thecurrentgeneration.

Theanswerstothequestionsweregroupedintocategories.Theversionsofeach

devicewerecodedinreversechronologicalorderwiththenewestversioncoded1.00and

theoldestcoded4.00.Thatnumberrepresentedwhereeachparticipantfellonthe

innovationcurve.A1.00representedearlyadopters,whilea4.00representedlaggards..

Peopleadoptaproductineachcategoryatdifferentratesandfordifferentreasons,

forthepurposesofthisthesistheirneedforcognitionanddeviceownershipwere

investigated.Iftheresultsmatchedtheliterature,theparticipantswouldhavemadetheir

decisiontoadoptorrejectbasedonprinciplesalreadyestablishedbytheELMand

diffusionofinnovation.

AnsweringtheRQs

TheresearchquestionswereansweredwithanANOVA.AnANOVAwasthebesttest

touse,becauseitallowstheresearcherstotestmultiplegroupsatonceforstatistical

differences.Havingeachofthedevicescoded1.00-4.00allowsustotesteachgroup’sneed

26

forcognition.Intheeventthepersondoesnotownadeviceinthecategory,theywere

codeda5.00.

ThemaximumscorefortheNeedforCognitionwasa+54.Thismeanttheperson

hadanextremelyhighneedforcognition.Theminimumscorewasa-54.Thismeantthe

personhadanextremelylowneedforcognition.Theseparameterswereobtainedby

askingall18needforcognitionquestionsona1-7scale,andthenrecodingtheresponses

toa+3to-3scaleThescorefromthisportionofthesurveywereusedtotesttheANOVA.

27

CHAPTER4

RESULTS

Thepurposeofthisthesiswastomatchlevelsofelaborationwithtechnology

owned.ThisthesiswasaninvestigationoftheElaborationLikelihoodModelandDiffusion

ofInnovationtheory.Thetwotheorieshelpexplainwhypeopledecidetopurchasenew

items.Pairingthesetwotheoriesgivesfutureresearchersabetterunderstandingofthe

roleselaborationlevelsplayintheadoptionofinnovation.Eachparticipant’sNeedFor

CognitionTestwasscored.Thescoreswereusedasthedependentvariableforeachtest.

Therangeinscoreswasbetween-9and+30.Themeanscorewas+8.5.Atotalof375

participantstookthequestionnaire.Ofthose,360weredeemeduseableforthisresearch.

ParticipantDemographics

TheparticipantswerestudentsatTheUniversityofAlabama.Allofthewere

enrolledincommunicationcoursesatthe200and300level.Studentsrangedfromages19-

25.Theeducationlevelsofthestudentswerefromfreshmantoseniors.

TestofHypothesesandResearchQuestions

Thefirstresearchquestionaskedabouttheneedforcognitionoftheearlyadopters.

Thisresearchquestionstated:

RQ1:Aretheparticipantswhoidentifythemselvesashavingahighneedfor

cognitionmorelikelytopurchaseproductsfirstandbeconsideredearlyadopters?

AnANOVAwasperformedinthreecategoriesinordertoanswerthisquestion.The

one-wayANOVAforsmartphoneownershipprovedtohaveresultsofsignificantvalue,F(3,

28

356)=2.621,p=.051.Thesignificantdifferencewasbetweengroup1.00and3.00.The

meandifferencewas-/+2.67161.p=.042.

Table4.1

Smartphoneownership

N Mean Standard

Deviation

Standard

Error

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Range

Low

Range

High

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Total

118

171

48

23

360

9.2966

8.7661

6.6250

7.5652

8.5778

5.98189

6.06273

4.42250

6.86775

5.93977

.55068

.46363

.63833

1.43203

.31305

8.2060

7.8509

5.3408

4.5954

7.9621

10.3872

9.6813

7.9092

10.5351

9.1934

-9.00

-8.00

-4.00

-5.00

-9.00

30.00

25.00

16.00

17.00

30.00

Table4.2

ANOVAforsmartphoneownership

Sumof

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Significant

BetweenGroups

WithinGroups

Totals

273.658

12392.164

12665.822

3

356

359

91.219

34.809

2.621 .051

Aone-wayANOVAanalysiswasusedtocalculatetheparticipantusageoftablets.

Therewasasignificantvaluetoreport,F(4,355)=2.631,p=.034.Thissignificant

29

differencewasbetweengroups3.00and4.00.Themeandifferencewas-/+3.16269,p=

.042.

Table4.3

TabletOwnership

N Mean Standard

Deviation

Standard

Error

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Range

Low

Range

High

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Total

8

40

37

103

172

360

7.3750

9.5250

10.4054

7.2527

8.8198

8.5778

6.94751

6.27567

5.22526

5.15156

6.27695

5.93977

2.45631

.99227

.85903

.50760

.47861

.31305

1.5667

7.5179

8.6632

6.2359

7.8750

7.9621

13.1833

11.5321

12.1476

8.2495

9.7645

9.1934

-3.00

-5.00

-2.00

-5.00

-9.00

-9.00

16.00

30.00

21.00

21.00

25.00

30.00

Table4.4

SmartphoneANOVA

Sumof

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Significant

BetweenGroups

WithinGroups

Totals

364.708

12301.114

12665.822

3

355

359

91.177

34.651

2.631 .034

Theone-wayANOVAforvideogameownershiphadnosignificantfindingstoreport

(F(3,356)=1.837,p=.140).

30

Basedonthefindingsoftheone-wayANOVAsusingsmartphones,werejectthenull

hypothesisforresearchquestion1.Thesignificantfindingsonthesmartphoneusage

matchedwhatweexpectedtofindinthefirstresearchquestion.Thesignificantdifference

incognitionwasbetweengroupsone(theearlyadopters)andthree(latemajority).

Therewasasignificantfindingincognitionbetweengroupsthreeandfourfortablet

ownership.Groupthreehadthehighestneedforcognition,butitwasnotconsistentwith

theresearchquestion.Researchshowsthatpeopleinthelatemajorityhavethehighest

needforcognitionfortabletownership.Therewerenosignificantfindingsforvideogame

consoleownership.

Researchquestiontwodealswiththeearlymajority.Thesecondresearchquestion

stated:

RQ2:Willparticipantswhoidentifythemselvesashavingalowerneedforcognition

thantheearlyadoptersadoptproductsonthefirsthalfofthediffusioncurveand

likelybeconsideredtheearlymajority?

Basedontheinformationgatheredfromtheone-wayANOVA,wehavenosignificant

findingtoreportforresearchquestiontwo.Theparticipantsinthesmartphoneownership

didhaveahigherneedforcognitionthanthelatemajorities,butlowerthantheearly

adopters.Thedifferencewasofnosignificance.Theearlymajorityfortabletownership

hadahigherneedforcognitionthantheearlyadopters,butlowerthanthelatemajority.

Thisisnotofsignificantvalue.

Theresultsforthelatemajorityprovedtobethemostinteresting.Thelatemajority

hadthemostsignificantfindings.Researchquestionthreestated:

31

RQ3:Willparticipantswhoidentifythemselvesashavingalowneedforcognition

adoptproductsonthesecondhalfofthediffusioncurveandmorelikelybe

consideredlatemajority?

Thisgroup’sneedforcognition,latemajority,wassignificantlylowerthantheearly

adoptersinsmartphoneownership,buttherewerenosignificantfindingstoreportother

thanbetweentheearlyadoptersandthelatemajority.

Theresultsforthelatemajorityforthetabletownershipshowedasignificant

differenceinneedforcognitionbetweengroupthree,latemajority,andgroupfour,

laggards.Thelatemajority’sneedforcognitionwassignificantlyhigherthanthelaggards.

Therewerenosignificantfindingstoreportwiththevideogameownership.

Thefinalresearchquestiondealtwiththelaggardsandtheirneedforcognition.The

researchquestionstated:

RQ4:Willtheparticipantswhoidentifythemselvesashavingthelowestneedfor

cognitionbethelasttoadoptnewproducts?

Afterconductingaseriesofone-wayANOVAs,therewerenosignificantfindingsin

smartphoneandvideogameownership.Thereweresignificantfindingsforthetablet

ownership.Thesignificantdifferenceinthetabletownershipwasbetweenthelaggards

andlatemajority.Theresultsweresignificantlylowerthanthelatemajority.Becauseof

thesefindings,thelaggard,didnothavethelowestneedforcognition.

ForthisresearchweperformedthreeANOVAtests.Twoofthethreetestshad

significantfindings.Thethirdtestwithvideogameownershiphadnosignificantfindingsto

report.

32

CHAPTER5

DISCUSSION

Thepurposeofthisthesiswastomatchtheneedforcognitionwiththetechnology

ownedbytheparticipants.Significantdifferenceswerefoundineachcategory—

smartphone,tablet,videogameconsole—butone.Thevideogameconsolescoreshowedno

significantdifferencebetweentheconsoleowners.Thenumbersappearedtobevery

similar.Ofthe360participants,only117answeredthattheydidownagamingconsole.

Thiscategorydidnotincludegamingcomputersortheaccessoriesthatgowiththe

consoles.

Thefirstresearchquestionexploredwhetherpeoplewiththehighestneedfor

cognitionwouldbethefirsttoadoptnewtechnology.AfterconductingtheANOVAtest,the

resultsshowthatthepeoplewiththehighestneedforcognitiontendedtobuythenewest

smartphone.Therewasasignificantdifferencebetweengroupsone,theearlyadopters,

andthree,thelatemajority.Thus,thosewiththehighestneedforcognitiondidbuy

smartphonesearlierthanthosewithalowerneedforcognition.

Thisgroupwasveryinterestingbecausethepersonwhohadthehighestneedfor

cognition(+30)wasintheearlyadopterscategory,andthepersonwhoscoredthelowest

ontheneedforcognitiontest(-9)alsowasinthiscategory.Thisisinterestingbecause

overallthisisconsistentwithdiffusionofinnovation.Thetheorymentionsthelevelof

uncertaintyandwaysitisreduced.Theeasiestwaytoreducethelevelofuncertaintyisjust

toresearchbeforeadopting.Anotherwaytoreducethatuncertaintyisjusttotrythe

innovation.Yes,mostpeopleinthiscategoryhadahighneedforcognition,butthisalso

33

takeintoaccountthepeoplewhodonotresearchbeforetheybuynewproducts.TheELM

statesthatmostpeoplethatareperipheralcuesareinfluencedbyfactorsthatmaynot

affecthowtheproductworks.Thepersonwiththelowestcognitioninthiscategorylikely

hadahighneedofuncertaintywithpurchasingthelatestsmartphone.Ifthefactorof

persuasionwasthattheparticipantwantedtobethefirsttoowntheproductwould

suggestthattheyhasaperipheralwayofthinking.Eventhoughthisgrouphadthehighest

overallneedforcognition,therewasnosignificantdifferencebetweengroupone,group

twoandgroupfour.Sincethesignificantdifferencewasbetweengroupsoneandthree,

thissuggestspeoplewithahigherneedforcognitionweremorelikelytoadoptnew

technology.

Whenlookingatthedataforthetabletownership,groupthreehadthehighestneed

forcognition.Thisgroupwouldbeconsideredthelatemajorityontheinnovationcurve.

Whatwasinterestingabouttheresultsofthistestwasthattherewasasignificant

differencebetweengroupsthreeandfour(p=.042).Thesefindingscouldbeattributedto

thelackofinformationavailableonthefirstgenerationoftablets.Thepeoplewhobought

tabletsinthefirstgenerationdidnothavemuchinformationavailableorhaveanythingto

compareittoastheydidforlatergenerations.Afterthefirstgenerationtablets,therewas

moreinformationavailableforpeopletoreadandcompareitto.Also,thereisnotaneedto

updatethisproductasoftenasthesmartphone.Thismightexplainwhythisgrouphadthe

highestneedforcognition.

Fromapublicrelationsperspective,thisisimportantbecauseitsuggeststhat

informationholdsheavypersuasivepowerfornewinnovations.Articlesfromthecompany

withdetailsaboutthenewproductshouldbeencouragedwhentryingtoinformandbuild

34

excitementsurroundingnewproducts.Astimegoeson,moreinformationwillbecome

available.TheresultsoftheANOVAwiththesmartphoneandtabletsbackthisup.

Thesecondresearchquestioninvestigatedtherelationshipbetweentheearly

majorityandthepeoplewiththesecondhighestneedforcognition.Althoughthisgroup

didhavealowerneedforcognitionthanthefirstgroup,therewerenosignificant

differencesinanyofthegroups.Neitherthesmartphonenorthetabletshowedany

significantfindings.

Thethirdresearchquestionaskedifthepeoplewhofallintothelatemajorityhavea

lowerneedforcognitionthanthefirsttwogroupsbuthigherthanthelaggards.Thisgroup

testedthelowestofanygroupinthesmartphonecategory.Therewasastatistical

differencebetweenthelatemajorityandtheearlyadopterswhenitcametopurchasing

smartphones(sig..042).Therealsowasasignificantdifferencebetweenthelatemajority

andthelaggardswhenitcametotheadoptionoftablets(sig..042).Basedonthefindingsof

theANOVA,werejectthefindingsofthenullhypothesis.Thereissignificantdifference

betweenthelevelsofcognitionwhenitcomestopurchasingsmartphonesandtablets.

Asmentionedearlier,thisshowsthatthelatemajorityinthecaseofthesmart

phonehadthelowestcollectiveneedforcognition.Somuchsothattherewasasignificant

differencebetweentheearlyadoptersandthelatemajority.Thisfindingsuggeststhatthe

latemajorityismorepersuadedbyperipheralcueswhenitcomestosmartphoneuse.

Thesepeoplearepossiblyhearingabouttheproductfromothersorwaitingforthe

reductioninpricewiththereleaseofanewsmartphone.Thelatemajorityinthecaseof

smartphoneownershiparelesslikelytopurchasethenewestsmartphone,asitis

released.

35

Whenitcomestotheresultsfortabletuse,thelatemajorityhadthehighestneedfor

cognition.Therewasalsoasignificantdifferenceintheneedforcognitionbetweenthelate

majorityandthelaggards.Asmentionedearlierthiscouldbebecausetherewasnotmuch

informationavailableforthefirstgenerationtablets.Thisneedstobeinvestigatedfurther.

Thefinalresearchquestionaskedifthepeoplewiththelowestneedforcognition

werelaggards.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesinneedforcognitionwhenitcameto

purchasingasmartphone.Thelaggardsactuallyhadaslightlyhigherneedforcognitionin

thesmartphonecategory,butnotofanysignificance.Buttherewasasignificantdifference

whenitcametothelaggardsandtabletownership.Thelaggards’needforcognitionwas

significantlylowerthanthatofthelatemajority.Asmentionedearlier,thepossiblecauseof

thiscouldbethelackofinformationavailableaboutthefirstgenerationtablets.Becauseof

thisnewtechnology,theparticipantswhopurchaseditdidnotresearchandpossibly

boughtitwithlittleknowledgeofthetechnology.

36

CHAPTER6

LIMITATIONS

Therearemanylimitationsinthisthesis,butthemainlimitationisthefactthatthe

sampleconsistedofcollegestudentsinaparticulardepartmentatTheUniversityof

Alabama.Thesestudentsareverysimilarinmanyways,anditcouldhavepossiblyskewed

theresponsesinaparticulardirection.Diffusionofinnovationindicatesthatsocialnorms

areaheavyinfluencerofpersuasion.Becausethestudentsaresosimilar,theresearch

showsasocialnormforonedemographic.

Oursamplewasstudentsbetweentheagesof18and24.Mostofwhichwerein200-

levelclasses.Ifwegavetheneedforcognitiontesttopeoplewhowerenotincollege,there

isabetterpossibilitythattheresultswouldhavebeenmorespreadoutmakingtheresults

morerepresentativetoanationalsample.

Anotherlimitationisthatwedidnotaskwhytheypurchasedtheproducts.We

understandtheneedforcognition,butthatmayormaynotbethereasonpeopledecidedto

adopttheproduct.Ifthepersonwereanearlyadopterbecausehisorheroldphonedidnot

workanymoreandheorshewasforcedtoupgrade,heorshewouldhavebeenusingthe

peripheralroute,accordingtotheELM.Ontheoppositeside,ifthepersondecidedtoreject

thetabletsbecauseheorshedidnotbelievetheinnovationwasworthadoptingrightaway

basedonresearchabouttheproduct,heorshewouldhavebeenusingcentralized

processing.

Thetabletownershipbroughtupalotofquestions.Anotherlimitationwasthe

advancesintechnology,andthenumberofpeoplewhochosetorejecttheinnovation.

37

Duringthequestionnaire,wedidnotaskwhyparticipantsrejectedtheproduct.More

qualitativeresearchcouldbedonetobetterunderstandwhytheydidnotadoptthe

technology.Alsoresearchneedstobedoneonehowtochangetheirattitudestowards

adopting.

Wearelookingattechnology

38

CHAPTER7

CONCLUSION

Thegoalofthisthesiswastolearnmoreaboutthedecision-makingprocesswhenit

comestothediffusionofinnovation.ThetheorythatwasusedtopairwithDiffusionof

InnovationwastheElaborationLikelihoodModel(ELM).Thesetwotheorieswereusedas

theframeworkforthisresearch.Whatwewantedtoinvestigatewasneedforcognitionand

deviceownershipandtherelationshipbetweenthesetwotheories.

Thefirsttheorywasdiffusionofinnovation.Thistheoryexplainstheprocessofhow

innovationspreadsthroughsociety.Thisstudytookacloserlookatpeopleinthe

categoriesofthelifeofthetechnology:earlyadopters,earlymajority,latemajority,and

laggards.Eachgrouphasspecificcharacteristics.Themaindifferencethecognitiontest

results.Therewheretwosignificantfindings.

TheELMisadualrouteofpersuasion.Thetworoutesarecentralandperipheral.

Thecentralrouteisforthepeoplewhoaremorepersuadedbystrongfactsandheavy

arguments.Thesepeopletendtoresearchitemsforinformation.Ontheotherhand,the

peripheralroutesaremorepassivewaysofgatheringinformation.Thesepeopletendtobe

morepersuadedbyperipheralcuessuchasafamouspersonorpeerpressure.Thiswas

gaugedinthisstudybytheneedforcognitiontest.

Thefindingsfromthesurveywerethatwhenitcametosmartphoneownership,

thereweresignificantdifferencesincognitionlevels.Thesignificantdifferencewas

betweentheearlyadaptorsandthelatemajority.Whenitcametotabletownershipthe

39

significantdifferencewasbetweenthelatemajorityandthelaggards.Therewereno

significantfindingswhenitcametovideogameconsoleownership.

Thepurposeofthisthesiswastolaythegroundworkformoreresearchfor

investigatingtherelationshipoftheELManddiffusionofinnovation.Thefindingsherewill

contributetofutureresearch.

40

REFERENCES

Angst,C.M.,&Agarwal,R.(2009).AdoptionofElectronicHealthRecordsinthePresenceofPrivacyConcerns:TheElaborationLikelihoodModelandIndividualPersuasion.MISQuarterly,2.339.

Attitude-toward-the-brand(AB)scaleandattitude-toward-the-ad(Aad)

scale:Machleit,K.A.&Wilson,R.D.(1988).Emotionalfeelingsandattitudetowardtheadvertisement:Therolesofbrandfamiliarityandrepetition.JournalofAdvertising(17),3,27-35.

Bitner,M.J.,&Obermiller,C.(1985).Theelaborationlikelihoodmodel:Limitationand

Extensionsinmarketing.AdvancesInConsumerResearch,12(1),420-425.Cacioppo,J.T.,Petty,R.E.,Kao,C.F.,&Rodriguez,R.(1986).Centralandperipheralroutes

topersuasion:Anindividualdifferenceperspective.JournalOfPersonalityAndSocialPsychology,51(5),1032-1043.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032

Chen,S.,&Lee,K.(2008).TheRoleofPersonalityTraitsandPerceivedValuesin

Persuasion:anElaborationLikelihoodModelPerspectiveOnOnlineShopping.SocialBehavior&Personality:AnInternationalJournal,36(10),1379-1400.doi:10.2224/sbp.2008.36.10.1379

Claudy,M.,Garcia,R.,&O'Driscoll,A.(2015).Consumerresistancetoinnovation-a

behavioralreasoningperspective.JournalofTheAcademyOfMarketingScience,43(4),528-544.doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0399-0

Compagni,A.,Mele,V.,&Ravasi,D.V.(2015).Howearlyimplementationinfluencelater

adoptionsofinnovation:SocialPositioningandSkillReproductionintheDiffusionofRoboticSurgery.AcademyOfManagementJournal,58(1),242-278.doi:10.5465/amj.2011.1184

Efimova,E.,Kuznetsova,N.,&Ramanauskas,J.(2014).Innovationdiffusionasacatalist

FORINDUSTRIALcompany’seconomicgrowth.ManagementTheory&StudiesForRuralBusiness&InfrastructureDevelopment,36(2/3),485-494.

Ho,S.Y.,&Bodoff,D.(2014).TheeffectsofWebpersonalizationonuserattitudeand

behavior:anintegrationoftheelaborationlikelihoodmodelandconsumersearchtheory.MISQuarterly,Volume#?(2),497.

Jaehwan,K.,&Nayakankuppam,D.(2015).StrengthwithoutElaboration:TheRoleof

ImplicitSelf-TheoriesinFormingandAccessingAttitudes.JournalOfConsumerResearch,42(2),316-339.doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv019

41

KarYan,T.,&ShukYing,H.(2005).WebPersonalizationasaPersuasionStrategy:An

ElaborationLikelihoodModelPerspective.InformationSystemsResearch,16(3),271-291.doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0058

Kitchen,P.J.,Kerr,G.,Schultz,D.E.,McColl,R.,&Pals,H.(2014).Theelaborationlikelihood

model:review,critiqueandresearchagenda.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,48(11/12),2033-2050.doi:10.1108/EJM-12-2011-0776

Kupor,D.M.,&Tormala,Z.L.(2015).Persuasion,Interrupted:TheEffectofMomentary

InterruptionsonMessageProcessingandPersuasion.JournalOfConsumerResearch,42(2),300-315.doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv018

Li,C.(2013).Persuasivemessagesoninformationsystemacceptance:Atheoretical

extensionofelaborationlikelihoodmodelandsocialinfluencetheory.ComputersinHumanBehavior,29(IncludingSpecialSectionYouth,Internet,andWellbeing),264-275.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.003

LinyunW.,Y.,Cutright,K.M.,Chartrand,T.L.,&Fitzsimons,G.J.(2014).Distinctively

Different:ExposuretoMultipleBrandsinLow-ElaborationSettings.JournalofConsumerResearch,40(5),973.doi:10.1086/673522

Machleit,K.A.,&Wilson,R.D.(1988).EmotionalFeelingsandAttitudeTowardthe

Advertisement:TheRolesofBrandFamiliarityandRepetition.JournalofAdvertising,17(3),27-35.

McVay,G.J.(2015).TheEffectsofCompensationScheme,SourceCredibility,andReceiver

InvolvementsontheOrganizationalBudgetingProcess.AcademyOfAccounting&FinancialStudiesJournal,19(3),217-234.

O'Keefe,D.J.(2002).Persuasion:Theory&research.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,

c2002.Petty,R.E.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(1984).SourceFactorsandtheElaborationLikelihoodModel

ofPersuasion.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,11(1),668-672.Purchaseintention(PI)scale:Muehling.D.D.&Laczniak,R.(1988).

Advertising'simmediateanddelayedinfluenceonbrandattitudes:Considerationacrossmessageinvolvementlevels.JournalofAdvertising,17(4),23-34.

Rogers,E.M.(2003).Diffusionofinnovations.NewYork:FreePress,2003.Rogers,E.M.(1995).Diffusionofinnovations.NewYork:FreePress,1995.

42

Shreffler,M.B.(2014).ThePersuasivenessofElectronicWordofMouthonAttitudesandBehaviors:AnElaboration-Likelihood-ModelPerspective.InternationalJournalofSportCommunication,7(3),377-398.

Wilson,R.D.,&Machleit,K.A.(1985).AdvertisingDecisionModels:AManagerialReview.

CurrentIssues&ResearchinAdvertising,8(1),99.Yang,S.(2015).Aneye-trackingstudyoftheElaborationLikelihoodModelinonline

shopping.ElectronicCommerceResearchandApplications,14(Specialsectionone-sellingandonlineengagement),233-240.doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2014.11.007

43

APPENDIXA

Surveyquestions

A:NeedforCognitionscale–

1.Iwouldprefercomplextosimpleproblems.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 72.IliketohavetheresponsibilityofhandlingasituationthatrequiresalotofthinkingStrongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 73.Thinkingisnotmyideaoffun.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 74.IwouldratherdosomethingthatrequireslittlethoughtthansomethingthatissuretochallengemythinkingabilitiesStrongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 75.ItrytoanticipateandavoidsituationswherethereislikelyachanceIwillhavetothinkindepthaboutsomething.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 76.IfindsatisfactionindeliberatinghardandforlonghoursStrongly StronglyDisagree Agree

44

1 2 3 4 5 6 77.IonlythinkashardasIhaveto.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 78.Iprefertothinkaboutsmall,dailyprojectstolong-termones.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 79.IliketasksthatrequirelittlethoughtonceI’velearnedthem.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 710.Theideaofrelyingonthoughttomakemywaytothetopappealstome.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 711.Ireallyenjoyataskthatinvolvescomingupwithnewsolutionstoproblems.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 712.Learningnewwaystothinkdoesn’texcitemeverymuch.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 713.IprefermylifetobefilledwithpuzzlesthatImustsolve.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 714.Thenotionofthinkingabstractlyisappealingtome.Strongly Strongly

45

Disagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 715.Iwouldpreferataskthatisintellectual,difficult,andimportanttoonethatissomewhatimportantbutdoesnotrequiremuchthought.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 716.Ifeelreliefratherthansatisfactionaftercompletingataskthatrequiredalotofmentaleffort.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 717.It’senoughformethatsomethinggetsthejobdone;Idon’tcarehoworwhyitworks.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 718.Iusuallyendupdeliberatingaboutissuesevenwhentheydonotaffectmepersonally.Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46

APPENDIXB

DeviceOwnershipQuestionnaire

Whichconsoleisthemostrecentconsolethatyouown?

EighthGenerationConsoleso PlayStation4o WiiUo XboxOne

SeventhGenerationConsoleso PlayStation3o Wiio Xbox360o NintendoDSo SonyPSP

SixthGenerationConsoleso SegaDreamcasto GameCubeo PlayStation2o Xboxo GameboyAdvanceo N-Gage

FifthGenerationConsoleso 3DOo AtariJaguaro SegaSaturno PlayStationo Nintendo64o GameboyColoro SegaNomad

FourthGenerationConsoleso SegaGenesiso SuperNintendoo Gameboyo GameGear

47

SmartphoneOwnership

Whattypeofphonedoyoucurrentlyownandpersonallyuse?

o SamsungGalaxyNote5o SamsungGalaxyNote4o SamsungGalaxyNoteIIIo SamsungGalaxyNoteIIo SamsungGalaxyNoteo SamsungGalaxyMegao SamsungGalaxyS6Edgeo SamsungGalaxyS6o SamsungGalaxyS5o SamsungGalaxyS4o SamsungGalaxyS3o AppleiPhone6sPluso AppleiPhone6so AppleiPhone6Pluso AppleiPhone6o AppleiPhone5so AppleiPhone5co AppleiPhone5o AppleiPhone4so AppleiPhone4o AppleiPhone3go HTCOne(M9)o HTCOne(M8)o HTCOneo HTCOneXo HTCButterfly/DroidDNAo WindowsPhone10o WindowsPhone8.1o WindowsPhone8o WindowsPhone7o Other_____________o Idonotownasmartphone.

48

Tabletownership

Doyouownatablet?Ifnot.Reason.Whattypeoftabletdoyoucurrentlyownandpersonallyuse?

o iPado iPad2o iPad3o iPad4o iPadAiro iPadAir2o iPadMinio iPadMini2o iPadMini3o iPadMini4o SamsungGalaxyTabSo SamsungGalaxyTabProo SamsungGalaxyTab4o SamsungGalaxyTab3o SamsungGalaxyTab2o SamsungGalaxyTabo SamsungGalaxyTabPluso Nooko NookSimpleToucho NookColoro NookTableto NookHDo NookHD+o NookGlowlighto Nexus7(gen1)o Nexus7(gen2)o Nexus10o Nexus9o KindleFireo KindleFireHDo KindleFireHD(gen2)o KindleFireHD(gen3)o KindleFireHD(gen4)o KindleFireHDX(gen3)o KindleFireHDX(gen4)o MicrosoftSurfaceo MicrosoftSurface2o MicrosoftSurface3o MicrosoftSurfacePro

49

o MicrosoftSurfacePro2o MicrosoftSurfacePro3o MicrosoftSurfaceHub

50

AppendixC

51

52

53