THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TOWARD ......Consumers are more interested in cellular phones with Android operating systems that are currently very popular among consumers. Based on

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1130 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 11, November 2018, pp. 1130–1147, Article ID: IJCIET_09_11_108

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=11

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

©IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL

TOWARD CONSUMERS ADOPTION OF

INNOVATION WITH CONSUMER

INNOVATIVENESS AS MEDIATORS (STUDY OF

CELLULAR TELEPHONE CONSUMERS IN

MALANG CITY)

Uke Prajogo

Management Science Doctoral Program, University of Brawijaya, Malang, 65145, Indonesia

Department of Management, Malangkucecwara School of Economics,

Malang, 65145, Indonesia

Armanu, Rofiaty, Sunaryo

Department of Management, University of Brawijaya, Malang, 65145, Indonesia

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research to analyze of the influence psychological toward

consumers adoption of innovation with consumer innovativeness as mediator in

cellular telephone products as an object of research. This research used cellular

telephone consumers in Malang City as the unit of analysis; the sample research has

230 respondents. The sampling method used is Non Probability Sampling with

convenience sample technique. The analytical method used to analyze the data is Path

Analysis using the SEM (Structural Equation Model) approach with the help of the

Amos program. The results of this research indicate that (1) Psychology did not direct

influence toward consumer adoption of innovation. (2) Psychology significant

influence toward consumer adoption of innovation with consumer innovativeness as a

mediator

Key words: Psychology, Consumer Adoption of Innovation, consumer innovativeness

Cite this Article: Uke Prajogo, Armanu, Rofiaty, Sunaryo, The Influence of

Psychological Toward Consumers Adoption of Innovation with Consumer

Innovativeness as Mediators (Study of Cellular Telephone Consumers in Malang

City), International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 9(11),

2018, pp. 1130–1147.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=11

The Influence of Psychological Toward Consumers Adoption of Innovation with Consumer

Innovativeness as Mediators (Study of Cellular Telephone Consumers in Malang City)


1. INTRODUCTION

In the globalization era, the product life cycle of companies in various industries is getting

shorter. This reason caused there are various companies that feel compelled to innovate their

products to meet customer demands and maintain market share from competitors in the global

market. Product innovation is a key strategy for some companies to gain competitive

advantage that is closely related to the emergence of new products (Chandy and Tellis, 2000).

Therefore, the company must continue to develop innovative products that are created in

order to survive in global competition both in terms of the use of new technology in the

product and the strategy of launching the new product.

Many empirical studies categorize product innovation by considering the level of

technological change in products, the level of market novelty, and consumer tastes (Reid and

de Brentani, 2004). However, on the one hand innovation is needed to satisfy customer

demands and maintain market share and another side is not a few companies experience

failure related to product innovation. The level of product innovation failure is at a fairly high

level even in some sectors up to 80% (Wilke and Sorvillo, 2003). As a result, the company

must bear substantial losses because the costs and time invested in R & D are not

commensurate with the results of the sale of the new product. The failure risk minimization is

companies need to pay attention to factors that influence the success of selling new products

to consumers including consumer understanding of the role of innovation and its effect on

product adoption behavior (Kirton, 1976; Raju, 1980; Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991; Rogers,

2003; Gourville, 2006; Hauser et al, 2006).

In a global context, companies in various sectors increasingly introduce innovative

products in the world community one of which is a cellular telephone company. As time goes

by, cellular phones become mandatory commodities that must be owned by everyone. The

development of increasingly sophisticated cellular phone features makes cellular phones not

only used to communicate, but can also do various other things. Cellphone companies

compete with each other to innovate to produce elegant designs and sophisticated technology

at relatively affordable prices making competition in the cellular phone industry increasingly

stringent.

Not all innovations that are applied to one product will successfully attract consumers.

Most of the products launched on the market actually fail before they enter the maturity

period (Crawford, 1977; Booz, Allen et al, 1982). As an industry loaded with innovation, the

rate of failure of cellular phone product innovation is quite high. One example of a product

that has failed innovation is Nokia's cellular phone products. Nokia is the most popular

cellular phone brand in the 2000s. This vendor reached its peak in 2007 with a market share

of up to 41% (DetikNet, 2014). Nokia's glory began to fade when this vendor stopped Sybian

support which was Nokia's flagship operating system at the time and switched to Windows

Phone. The innovations implemented by Nokia did not get good appreciation in the eyes of

consumers. Consumers are more interested in cellular phones with Android operating systems

that are currently very popular among consumers.

Based on the data above, it can be seen that there is a possibility of a failure related to

product innovations launched by cell phone companies. To minimize the risk of failure, the

marketing division of a company needs to understand the behavior of consumer

innovativeness that is the target market. Thus, companies need to know the tendency of

consumers to adopt products with new innovations (Tellis, 2003).

Consumer innovativeness of products will be a reference that can help companies to read

consumer views on innovation. In addition, successful innovation will greatly help the

company's image as a market leader and simultaneously build entry barriers for competitors.

Uke Prajogo, Armanu, Rofiaty, Sunaryo


Therefore, the marketing division of a company must understand consumer innovativeness

well and correctly so that the products produced can be successful in the market. With the

understanding of consumer innovativeness that is good and true, it will be known the needs

and behavior patterns of consumers who are the target of product marketing. Under these

conditions, practitioners in a company should explore consumer innovativeness in order to

determine segmentation and target markets so that the risk of failure of new products in the

company can be minimized.

The consumer innovativeness theory developed by Midgley and Dowling (1978) is a

consumer innovativeness theory that is often used in research. According to Midgley and

Dowling, there are 2 factors which affect consumer innovativeness, namely psychological and

social demographic factors. Consumer innovativeness has been regarded as a force that leads

to innovative behavior that is often cited and studied in research on the diffusion of

innovation. Consumer innovativeness can be described as an initial purchase of new products

(Cestre, 1996), as well as a tendency to be attracted to new products (Steenkamp et al, 1999).

Some things that affect consumer innovativeness are psychological factors. Referring to

Berlyne's approach (1960), psychological factors are shown from how new products can help

people maintain their inner stimulation at optimal levels in different situations. Many

empirical results (e.g. Mittelstaedt et al, 1976) validate this theoretical perspective. In fact,

Raju (1980) shows that innovativeness may be mixed between the need for inner stimulation

and innovative behavior to adopt new products as mediator variables. Empirical results show

that there is a positive and significant relationship between the need for inner stimulation and

innovation (Joachimstahler and Lastovicka, 1988).

Based on the gap of the research results stated above, the researcher wishes to conduct a

research of the psychological influence with consumer innovativeness as a mediator toward

consumer adoption of innovation. This research was conducted on cellular telephone products

as research objects. This is because cellular phone products are products that are full of

innovation. The selection of object of cellular phone products is specifically for the Samsung

brand, because Samsung is one of the market leaders in the cellular phone industry in

Indonesia

Table 1 Research Gap (Research Gap)

No Hipotesis Researcher Analysis tool Research result

1

Psychology has

a significant

influence on

customer

innovativeness

Roehrich, Gilles

(2004)

Descriptive

statistics

The concept and scale of

measurement of Consumer

Innovativeness

Ruvio et al

(2008)

Regression Consumer innovativenesshas a

significant influence towardconsumer

adoption of innovation

Lassar et al

(2005)

Regression Consumer innovativenesshas a

significant influence toward consumer


Roehrich (2004) Regression Consumer innovativeness did not

significant influence toward consumer


Costinel;

Dobre, Anca;

Dragomir,

Gheorghe Preda

(2009)

Descriptive

statistics

The level of education and the level of

income influence consumer

acceptance of innovation.

Age has a different influence on

innovation depending on the sale of

new product prices.

There is a correlation between




No Hipotesis Researcher Analysis tool Research result

consumer personality and innovation.

Joep W.C.,

Ruud T.

Frambach

Tammo H.A.

Bijmolt

(2011)

multivariate

regression

Psychology has a significant influence

on consumer adoption of innovation,

Social Demography has a significant

influence on consumer adoption of

innovation,

Guangping

Wang, Wenyu

Dou, Nan Zhou.

(2005)

cross-sectional

method

Psychology has a significant influence

on New Product Adoption,

Social demography has no significant

influence on New Product Adoption,

2

Psikologis

mempunyai

pengaruh

positif dan

signifikan

terhadap

Consumer

Adoption Of

Innovation

Ruvio et al

(2008)

Regression consumer innovativeness has a

significant influence on consumer


Lassar et al

(2005)

Regression consumer innovativeness has a



Roehrich (2004) Regression consumer innovativeness did not



Based on the empirical review above, through this research the researcher intends to

analyze the psychological influence on consumer innovativeness and consumer adoption of

innovation. Looking at this gap, the newness in this research is the existence of psychological

variable that can influence consumer innovativeness and consumer innovativeness variables

which are positioned as a mediating variable.

2. THEORITICAL REVIEW

2.1. Innovation

Innovation is not only fixated on technical problems but also related to organizational

administration aspects. The emergence of product innovation is basically to meet market

demand, so that product innovation is one that can be used as a competitive advantage for the

company (Han et al, 1998).

2.2. Product Innovation

Thompson (in Indriani and Prasetyowati, 2008) describes product innovation as ideas and

implementation / implementation of ideas for a new product in a company. According Reid

and de Brentani (2004) that product innovation includes all activities that consider the level of

technological change in the product and the level of novelty of the market and consumers.

2.3. Consumer Innovativeness

According to Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) that consumer innovativeness is the behavior of

innovativeness which includes the tendency to obtain the latest information or the adoption of

new products by consumers towards product classes (certain categories), or specific domains.

The behavior of consumer innovativeness tends to be in a specific product category (for

example, in the category of fashion products, cellular phones, etc.)

2.4. Consumer Adoption of Innovation

Hirschman (1981) shows that consumers are encouraged to adopt innovation depending on

two dimensions of innovation, namely the symbolic dimensions and technological



dimensions. Symbolic innovation refers to social meanings that did not exist before.

Technological innovation has real characteristics that have never been identified.

Furthermore, Hirschman divided the innovation products into four categories as Figure 2.1

below

Figure 1 Innovation Product Categories

Source: Hirschman (1981)

As mentioned in the picture above, technological innovation has high financial costs with

a fairly low social cost. The relative advantage of symbolic innovation depends on consumers'

desire to spread new images into their social environment. Hirschman shows that most

technological innovations are innovations with gradual character, and are very likely to meet

consumer needs for their habits and experiences.

2.5. Psychological Aspects

The choice of buying someone is influenced also by four main psychological aspects, namely

motivation, perception, knowledge, and beliefs and attitudes. In addition to these four factors,

Kotler (2000) explains that consumer behavior can also be influenced by marketing stimuli in

the form of marketing mixes.

2.6. Research Related to the Relationship between Psychological and Customer

Innovativeness

As described in previous studies, Gilles Roehrich's research shows that there is a significant

influence between psychological and consumer innovativeness. In line with this research

Midgley and Dowling's (1978) research shows that there is a significant influence between

psychological and consumer innovativeness.

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS OF RESEARCH

3.1. Conceptual Framework for Research

In general and comprehensive, the conceptual framework is built based on facts in the field,

the interrelationship of theoretical variables, previous research studies, research, analytical

methods and research objectives. The following research conceptual framework describes the

overall research process, namely analyzing, parsing, and explaining the effect of perceived

ease of use, perceived usefulness, demography, consumer innovativeness, and consumer

adoption of innovation. The flow of the research relationship is presented below.




Figure 2 Conceptual Framework

Information

H1: A: Dobre, Dragomir, Preda, (2009), B: Wang, Dou, Zhou (2005), C: Arts, Frambach, Bijmolt

(2011)

H2: D: Gilles (2003), E: Midgley dan Dowling (1978), F: Cowart, Fox, Wilson (2008), G: Lassar et

al (2005)

* There is a significant influence

** There is no significant influence

3.2. Research Hypothesis

The hypothesis is a provisional assumption regarding the relationship between research

variables that need to be proven. Referring to the results of previous researchers, based on the

direction of the variable relationship, the research hypothesis was formulated as follows.

3.2.1. Relationship between Psychology and Consumer Adoption of Innovation

The findings of previous researchers who examined the psychological influence on consumer

adoption of innovation include the study of Joep W.C (2011) with the title Generalizations on

consumer innovation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior. In this

research it was stated that there was a significant influence between psychological and

consumer adoption of innovation. In line with this research, Guangping Wang's research

(2005) entitled Attitudes consumption and adoption of new consumer products: a contingency

approach found that there was a significant influence between psychological and consumer

adoption of innovation.

Based on these findings, the following research hypothesis is proposed.

Hypothesis 1: There is influence Psychology in consumer adoption of innovation

3.2.2. Relationship between Psychologies towards Consumer Adoption of Innovation with

Consumer Innovativeness as Mediator

There have been previous findings of researchers about the perception of the usefulness and

research of Gilles Roehrich with the title An Exploration of the Relationship between Innate

Innovativeness and Specific Domain Innovativeness: Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer

Research shows the results that there is a significant influence between psychologies on

consumer innovativeness. In line with this research, the research of Midgley and Dowling

(1978) entitled Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement show the results that there

is a significant influence between psychologies on consumer innovativeness.

Based on these findings, the following research hypothesis is proposed.

Hypothesis 2: There is significant influence Psychology in consumer adoption of innovation

with consumer innovativeness as a mediator.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Cowart%2C+Kelly+O

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Fox%2C+Gavin+L

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Wilson%2C+Andrew+E



3.3. Operational Definition of Research Variables

a. Psychological Factors

The choice of purchasing someone is influenced by four main psychological factors, namely

(1) motivation, (2) perception, (3) knowledge (learning), and (4) beliefs and attitudes. In

addition to these four factors, consumer behavior can also be influenced by marketing stimuli

in the form of a marketing mix that includes products, prices, promotions, and distribution

channels (Kotler, 2000; 34).

b. Customer Innovativeness

Consumer innovativeness is an idea or product, which is considered or seen by potential

consumers (Engel, Blackwell, Miniard, 1990). Consumer innovativeness is measured using a

combined dimension of consumer innovativeness. Model as a reference as well as the

research of Gerard J. Tellis, Eden Yin, and Simon Bell (2009) which includes (1) seeking

novelty, (2) taking risks, (3) variety seeking, (4) opinion leadership, (5) dependence social, (6)

stimulus variation, (7) habituation, (8) nostalgia, (9) suspicion, (10) effort, and (11) frugality.

C. Consumer Adoption of Innovation

Consumer adoption of innovation is the decision to use innovation as a whole as the best way

of action (Rogers, 1983). Consumer adoption of innovation is measured using the dimensions

of the adoption model as a reference as well as Chao's (2013) research which includes (1) the

level of product usage, and (2) the number of new products owned.

Table 2 Operationalization of Research Variables

Variable Indicator

Item

Number on

Instrument

Psychologies Motivation is an encouragement of the needs and

desires of consumers in buying products, which

include:

a. Buy because of needs

b. Buy because it supports the appearance

c. Buy because the quality of the product is guaranteed

d. Buy because of the current trend

2. Perception is a process that begins with an

understanding and attention to the product purchased,

which includes:

a. Brands are important in determining purchases

b. Buy because of attractive bonuses

c. Buy because you understand the benefits and uses of

the product

3. Knowledge is the process by which individuals

acquire knowledge about the product purchased, which

includes:

a. Buy because you get good information about the

product from friends

b. Buy because you get good information about the

product from the seller

c. Buy because you know how to use the product

4. Attitude is the actual tendency and behavior of a

product purchased, which includes:

a. Buy because of the desired product

A1.1

A1.2

A1.3

A1.4

A2.1

A2.2

A2.3

A3.1

A3.2

A3.3




b. Buy because it's prestigious

c. Buy because the product is famous

5. Confidence is consumer trust about a product that is

purchased, which includes:

a. Buy because all relatives buy and own the product

b. Buy because the product is proven to be reliable

c. Buy because it is the best product

A4.1

A4.2

A4.3

A5.1

A5.2

A5.3

Consumer

Innovativeness The product has just been marketed

The product has a different design from the others

The product is not easily damaged

The product has a long warranty

The product easily claims warranty

The product has a high pixel camera

The product has a large RAM size

The product has a high battery capacity

The product has a large internal memory

The product has a 4G network

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

Consumer

Adoption of

Innovation

The product has a low purchase price

The product has a discount

Depreciation of prices on these products is not too

large

The features on the product make it easier to work

Features on these products make it easy to find

information

Features on these products make it easy to learn

anything

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. Research Design

Based on the procedure, this research is a type of survey research that takes samples from the

population using a list of statements as a data collection tool. Based on its purpose, this

research includes explanatory research. Because there are a number of hypotheses tested, this

research is referred to as hypothesis testing or testing research. The data collected is cross

sectional, obtained from respondents in responding to items related to variables in the form of

a list of statements to describe a situation in a certain time span.

4.2. Research Location

The research was conducted at Meteor Cell. Malang City was chosen as a research location

because Malang is a region with a high plurality where there are many students, students who

are mobile phone users who are actively following the development of the latest cellular

phones.



4.3. Data Sources

The type of data that will be used in this study is subject data (self report data), namely the

type of research data in the form of attitudes, opinions, experiences, or characteristics of a

person or group of people who are the subject of research or respondents. While the data

sources used in this study are primary and secondary data sources.

Primary data is data taken directly from the first source collected specifically through

interviews, the results of questionnaires filling, as well as observations relating to the

problems studied. In this study, primary data was obtained through questionnaires given to

respondents, namely cellular telephone consumers in Malang City.

Secondary data is data relating to the problem being studied which is obtained indirectly

through intermediary media. Secondary data in this study are data from newspapers and

online media related to the development of cellular phones. Secondary data is not part of the

quantitative analysis process, but is the starting material in data collection.

4.4. Population and Sample

The population is an area of generalization which consists of objects that have certain

qualities and characteristics set by the researcher to be studied and drawn conclusions. This

study chooses cellular telephone consumers in Malang City as an analysis unit because it has

the flexibility and responsiveness of consumer innovativeness.

The sample is a portion of the population that has characteristics that are relatively the

same and are considered to be able to represent the population. The sample size that is

suitable for SEM analysis tools is between 100-200 respondents, with the intention that it can

be used in estimating interpretations with SEM. In addition, the determination of the

minimum sample number for SEM according to Hair et al (1995) depends on the number of

indicators multiplied by 5-10.

Minimum sample number = Parameter x 10

= 25 x 10 = 250 respondents

Referring to the calculation of the minimum and maximum number of samples and

consideration of the number of existing populations, the number of samples selected for this

study is 325 respondents to be eligible in the use of SEM so that goodness-of-fit is feasible as

far as possible. The sampling method used is Non Probability Sampling with covariance

sample technique taken based on the availability of elements, ease of getting it. The sample

was taken because there was the right place and time.

5. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1. The Relationship of Variable with Each Indicator

In the structural equation model there are latent variables and indicators where the latent

variable cannot be observed directly but by observing the indicators on the latent variable.

The relationship between latent variables and each indicator will be explained in table 5. If the

coefficient value on the indicator is less than 0.5, then the indicator can be ignored (Ghozali,

2015). Indicator which has a coefficient of more than 0.5 then the indicator reflects the latent

variable.




Table 3 Latent Variable Relationships with Indicators

Latent Variable Indicator Coefficient

Psychological Motivation 0.750

Perception 0.582

Knowledge 0.613

Attitude 0.811

Trust 0.640

Consumer Innovativeness Camera 0.537

RAM 0.896

Battery 0.872

Internal memory 0.864

4G network 0.712

Consumer Adoption of Innovation Facilitate the work 0.803

Easy to search information 0.728

Facilitate learning 0.658

Psychological is formed from several indicators. The indicators that contribute to

psychology are shown in Table 5. Based on Table 5 Motivation can reflect psychology by

75%, perception can reflect psychological by 58.2%, knowledge can reflect psychological by

61.3%, attitude can reflect psychological by 81.1%, and trust can reflect psychologically by

64%. All coefficients of the five indicators are more than 0.5 so it can be concluded that all

indicators used reflect psychological.

Consumer innovativeness is formed from 5 indicators, namely innovation regarding

camera, RAM, battery, internal memory, and 4G networks. The five indicators have a

coefficient of more than 0.5. The other 5 indicators that have a coefficient of less than 0.5 can

be ignored. As for innovations regarding cameras, RAM, batteries, internal memory, and 4G

networks, each of them can reflect the variables of consumer innovativeness respectively

53.7%, 89.6%, 87.2%, 86.4%, and 71.2%. Of the 5 indicators the most RAM indicator can

reflect consumer innovation. This is because most respondents in this study were students.

Students today are very interested in new applications that can accelerate their activities.

Therefore, they need a cellphone that has large RAM so that the mobile phone can

accommodate the applications needed.

Variable consumer adoption of innovation consists of 6 indicators. However, there are

only 3 indicators that reflect consumer adoption of innovation, namely facilitating work,

making it easier to find information, and facilitating learning. The indicators of Facilitate the

work, easy to search information, and facilitate learning can reflect psychologically

respectively 80.3%, 72.8%, and 65.8%.

5.2. Testing Significance of each Line

In the study there were 4 latent variables used in the structural equation model. Between these

4 variables there are relationships with each other. However, the relationship between

variables in this study has significant or no effect. The following are the results obtained

between variables that have a relationship or not. However, the error rate used in this study

was 10%. Table 4 Test of Significance of Each Line

Line P Value Information

Psychological Consumer Adoption of Innovation

Psychological Consumer Innovativeness

0.033

<0.001

Not signifikan

Signifikan

Consumer Innovativeness Consumer Adoption Of Innovation <0.001 Signifikan



Based on Table 4, it was found that there were 2 of the 3 significant pathways applied in

this study. Table 4 shows that consumer innovativeness is influenced by psychological and

consumer adoption of innovation influenced by consumer innovation. The psychological does

not have a direct effect on consumer adoption of innovation, but must pass through the

moderator variable, namely consumer innovativeness.

The influence between variables in this study is appropriate and different from the next

research. In this study produced there was a significant influence between psychological on

consumer innovativeness, this is consistent with research conducted by Midgley and Dowling

(1978). Wang (2005) conducted a study and found that there was a significant influence

between psychology on consumer adoption of innovation, but in this study showed that there

was no significant influence between psychological and consumer adoption of innovation.

5.3. Contribution of each Latent Variable

Each relationship between variables must have how much influence is given by a variable.

The magnitude of the influence of each significant pathway will be explained as follows:

1. Psychological Relations with Consumer Innovativeness

The results obtained show that the pathway of psychological variables to consumer

innovativeness has a coefficient of 0.448. This means that consumer innovativeness is

influenced psychologically by 44.8% or in other words psychologically contributes 44.8% to

consumer innovativeness. In this case, psychological influence has a positive effect on

consumer innovativeness. This means that if a person has a high psychological value, that

person will have a high level of consumer innovativeness.

2. The relationship between Consumer Innovativeness and Consumer Adoption

of Innovation

The results obtained show that the path of variable consumer innovativeness to consumer

adoption of innovation has a coefficient of 0.46. This means that consumer adoption of

innovation is influenced by consumer innovativeness by 46% or in other words consumer

innovativeness that is influenced by psychology contributes 46% to consumer adoption of

innovation. In this case, the influence of consumer innovativeness has a positive effect on

consumer adoption of innovation. This means that if someone has a high level of

understanding of innovation, then the person will adopt the innovation more quickly.

From the above explanations, the construction of the resulting model can be seen in

Figure 4. In Figure 4, the direction of good relations between latent variables and latent

variables is shown with indicators and the influence of each or the magnitude of the

contribution of a path.




Figure 3 Path Constructions in SEM

Goodness of Fit SEM

Table 5 Goodness of Fit Model

Criteria Category Result Information

GFI 0.90 0.944 SEM Model Fit

PGFI 0.50 0.643 SEM Model Fit

IFI 0.95 0.966 SEM Model Fit

CFI 0.95 0.966 SEM Model Fit

RMSEA 0.08 0.057 SEM Model Fit

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. Conclusion

Based on the results of the discussion described earlier, the results of this study can be

summarized as follows

1. Psychology has no direct effect on consumer adoption of innovation

2. Psychology has an influence and significant impact on consumer adoption of innovation

with consumer innovativeness as a mediator.

6.2. Suggestions

For academics and researchers, the empirical findings on this research have shown the

complexity of the situation when a person wants to adopt an innovation. This can be used as a

means for further research

For cellular phone entrepreneurs the results of this study indicate the need for advertisements

that educate prospective cell phone buyers regarding the innovations made and their benefits

REFERENCES

[1] Adithya, H. S. 2013. Customer Perception and Behaviour of car Owners - an Empirical

Study in Bangalore City. Journal global Research analysis

[2] Akinyele, Samuel Taiwo & Olorunleke, Kola. 2012. Effect of consumer behaviour and

perception on car purchase decision: Empirical Evidence from Lagos – Nigeria. Journal

complex univers of economi

[3] Assael, H. 1992) Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action. Fourth Edition. PWS-

KENT Publishing Company, Boston

[4] Baltas, George & Saridakis, Charalampos. 2013. An empirical investigation of the impact

of behavioural and psychographic consumer characteristics on car preferences: An

integrated model of car type choice. Journal Transportation Research Part A

[5] Berlyne, D.E. 1960. Motivational Problems Raised by Exploratory and Epistemic

Behavior. In: S. Koch. Eds. Psychology: A Study of Science, New York: McGraw-Hill

[6] Bettman, James R. 1979. An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

[7] Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. 1982. New Product Management for the 1980’s, Chicago:

Booz, Allen & Hamilton



[8] Burns, David and Robert F. Krampf:1992. Explaining Inno-vative Behavior: Uniqueness

Seeking and Sensation-Seeking. International Journal of Advertising, 11:3, pp. 227–36

[9] Cestre G. 1996. Diffusion et innovativite:definition, modelisation et mesure. Rech Appl

Mark;11:1, pp. 69 – 88

[10] Chairy, and Geofanny Fredereca's Flowers. 2010. "The Influence of Consumer

Psychology on BlackBerry Smartphone Repurchase Decisions". Journal of Theory and

Applied Management. Year 3, No. 2, August.

[11] Chandy, R.K. and Tellis, G.J. 2000. The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical

product innovation. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 1-17

[12] Chao, Chih-Wei & Reid Mike & Mavondo, Felix. 2013. Global consumer innovativeness

and consumer electronic Products adoption. Journal APJML 25:4.

[13] Cooper, D.R. & Emory, C.W. 1995. Business research methods:5th ed.). Chicago: Irwin.

[14] Crawford, Merle C. 1977. New product failure rates-facts and fallacies,Research

Management, 22, pp. 9-13.

[15] Dabholkar, Pratibha A. and Richard P. Bagozzi:2002. An Atti-tudinal Model of

Technology-Based Self-Service: Moderating Effects of Consumer Traits and Situational

Factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30:3, pp.184–201

[16] Dickerson, M.D. and J.W. Gentry:1983. Characteristics of Adopters and Non-Adopters of

Home Computer. Journal of Consumer Research, 10:9, pp. 225–35

[17] Dobre, C., Man, C. 2003. Opinions on the Use of Cultural and Social Values in

Romanian Advertising, Strategijski Manadzement. Casopis za Strategijski Medadzment I

sisteme podrske strategijskom medadzmentu, no 4

[18] Drolet, Aimee L. and Donald G. Morrison:2001. Do We Really Need Multiple-Item

Measures in Service Research?‖ Journal of Service Research, 3:2,pp.196–204

[19] Etzel, M. J., Donnelly Jr, J. H., & Ivancevich, J. M. 1976. Social Character and Consumer

Innovativeness. Journal of Social Psychology, 100:1, pp.153-154

[20] Fiske, Susan T. and Shelley E. Taylor:1984. Social Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

[21] Fromkin, H.L. 1971. A Social Psychological Analysis of the Adoption and Diffusion of

New Products and Practices from a Uniqueness Motivation Perspective. in 2nd Annual

Confer-ence, David Gardner, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con-sumer Research,

pp.464–69.

[22] Garbarinoa. Ellen, Michal Strahilevitz 2004.Gender differences in the perceived risk of

buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business

Research 57:2004, pp.768 – 775

[23] Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. 2002. A critical look at technological innovation typology

and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, Vol. 19:2, pp.110-132

[24] Gatignon, Hubert, Jehoshua Eliashberg, and Thomas S. Robert-son:1989. Modeling

Multinational Diffusion Patterns: An Efficient Methodology. Marketing Science, 8:3,

pp.217–47

[25] Gerard J. Tellis, Eden Yin, and Simon Bell:2009. Global Consumer Innovativeness:

Cross-Country Differences and Demographic Commonalities. Journal of International

Marketing. Vol. 17:2, pp.1–22

[26] Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis. 1997. Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the Growth of

New Consumer Durables,‖ Marketing Science, 16:3, pp.256–70.




[27] Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis:1997. Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the Growth of

New Consumer Durables. Market-ing Science, 16:3, pp.256–70

[28] Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.E. 1991. Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-221

[29] Gourville, J.T. 2006. Eager sellers stony buyers: understanding the psychology of new-

product adoption. Harvard Business Review , Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 98-10

[30] Guangping Wang, Wenyu Dou, Nan Zhou. 2005. Consumption attitudes Ana adoption of

new konsumer products: a contingency approach . Journal EJM42,1:2, pp. 238-254

[31] Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C.:1995) Multivariate Data

Analysis, 3rd ed, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York

[32] Han, Yu, Y., Su, K., Kohanski, R.A., Pick, L. 1998. A binding site for multiple

transcriptional activators in the fushi tarazu proximal enhancer is essential for gene

expression in vivo. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18:6,pp. 3384—3394

[33] Hauser, J., Tellis, G.J. and Griffin, A. 2006. Research on innovation: a review and genda

for marketing science. Marketing Science , Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 687-717

[34] Hebb, D.O. 1955. Drives and the C.N.S. Central Nervous System. Psychological

Review, 62:4, pp. 243–54

[35] Higa, J. J. 1997. Rapid timing of a single interfood interval duration by rats. Animal

Learning & Behavior, 25, pp. 177-184

[36] Hirschman and Melanie Wallendorf. 1979. Correlations Between Three Indikators of

Breadth and Variation in Sources of Stimulation. in Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 6, H. Keith Hunt, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 111–

17

[37] Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1980. Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer

Creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7:3, pp. 283–295

[38] Ho, T.-H., Wuu. Zhang. 2011. Designing pricing contracts for boundedly rational

customers: Does the framing of the fixed fee matter? Management Science 54(4), pp.

686–700

[39] Hofstede, Geert:1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London:

McGraw-Hill

[40] Holbrook and Robert Schindler:1994. Age, Sex, and Attitude Toward the Past as

Predictors of Consumers’ Aesthetic Tastes for Cultural Products. Journal of Marketing

Research, 31:August, pp. 412–422

[41] Holbrook, Morris:1993. Nostalgia and Consumption Pref-erences: Some Emerging

Patterns of Consumer Tastes. Journal of Consumer Research, 20:2, pp. 245–56

[42] Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. 1977. Scales for the measurement of

innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, pp. 58-65

[43] Im, Subin, Barry L. Bayus, and Charlotte H. Mason. 2003. An Empirical Study of Innate

Consumer Innovativeness, Personal Characteristics, and New Product Adoption Behavior,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31:1, pp. 61–73

[44] Indriani, F., & Prasetyowati, E. 2008. Studi Mengenai Inovasi Produk pada Usaha Kecil

Kerajinan Ukiran di Jepara. Jurnal Sains Pemasaran Indonesia , pp. 249-272

[45] Indriantoro, Nur. 2000. An Empirical Study of Locus of Control and Cultural Dimensions

as Moderating Variabel of The Effect of Participative Budgeting on Job Performance and

Job Satisfaction. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis Indonesia. Vol. XV, Januari, pp. 97-114



[46] James F. Engel, Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Miniard:1990. Consumer Behavior, 6th

Edition, Ft. Worth, TX: The Dryden Press, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Saunders College

Publishing

[47] Joep W.C. Arts, Ruud T. Frambach and Tammo H.A. Bijmolt. 2011. Generalizations On

Consumer Innovation Adoption: A Meta-Analysis On Drivers Of Intention And

Behavior. Jurnal IJRM Vol.28:2

[48] Jonsson, C. V. (2010). Consumer Psychology. Boyd Open University Press New York.

[49] Kirton, M. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied

Psychology , Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 622-629.

[50] Kock, N.:2010). Using WarpPLS in e-collaboration studies: An overview of five main

analysis steps. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 6:4, pp. 1-11

[51] Kogan, Nathan and Michael Wallach:1964. Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and

Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

[52] Kotler Philip, 2005, Manajemen Pemasaran Analisis, Perencanaan dan Pengendalian, Jilid

Dua, Erlangga, Jakarta

[53] Kotler, Philip. 2002. Manajemen Pemasaran: Analisis, Perencanaan, implementasi dan

Kontrol, Edisi Sebelas. Alih Bahasa, Hendra Teguh. Jakarta: Penerbit PT. Prenhallindo

[54] Kotler, Philip. 2004. Manajemen Pemasaran Jilid 1:Terjemahan Hendra Teguh dkk.

Jakarta : PT. Indeks

[55] Kuo, Y.-F., & Yen, S.-N.:2009). Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to

use 3G mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25:1, pp. 103-110.

[56] Labay, D. G. and Kinnear, T. C. 1981) Exploring the Consumer Decision Process in the

Adoption of Solar Energy Systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, pp. 271-278

[57] Lassar, W.M., C. Manolis, and S. S. Lassar. 2007. The Relationship between Consumer

Innovativeness, Personal Characteristics, and Online Baking Adoption. International

Journal of Bank Marketing, 23, pp. 176-199

[58] Lastovicka JL, Joachimsthaler EA. Improving the detection of personality behavior

relationship in consumer research. J Consum Res 1988;14(4):583 –7. Wahlers RG, Dunn

MG. Optimal stimulation level measurement and ex-ploratory behavior: review and

analysis. AMA Winter Educators’ Con-ference, San Antonio, TX.1987, pp. 249 – 54.

[59] Laukkanen, T., 2007. Internet vs. mobile banking: comparing customer value perceptions.

Business Process Management Journal, 13:6, pp. 788-797

[60] Laukkanen, T., Pasanen, M., 2008. Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: How

they differ from other online users?. Journal of Financial Services Marketing. 13:2, pp.

86-94.

[61] Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Kivijärvi, M., Laukkanen, P., 2007. Innovation resistance

among mature consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing 24:7, pp. 419-427

[62] Leuba, Clarence:1955. Toward Some Integration of Learning Theories: The Concept of

Optimal Stimulation. Psychological Reports, 1, pp. 27–33

[63] Manning, Kenneth C., William O. Bearden, and Thomas J. Mad-den:1995. Consumer

Innovativeness and the Adoption Process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4:4, pp.

329–45

[64] McAlister, Leigh and Edgar Pessemier:1982. Variety Seeking Behavior: An

Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9:December, pp. 311–22

[65] Midgley, D.F., Dowling, G.R. 1998. Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement,

European Journal of Marketing, 32, pp. 340-353




[66] Midgley, David F. 1977, Innovation and New Product Mar-keting. New York: John

Wiley & Sons

[67] Mireille Merx, C. and W.J. Nijhof:2005. Factors influencing knowledge creation and

innovation in an organization, Journal of European Industrial Training; 2005; 29, 2/3;

ABI/INFORM Global, pp. 135.

[68] Mittelstaedt, R. A., Grossbart, S. L., Curtis, W. W., & Devere, S. P. 1976. Optimal

stimulation Level and the Adoption Decision Process. Journal of Consumer Research, 3,

No. 2. Pp. 84-94.

[69] Mittelstaedt, Robert A., Sanford L. Grossbart, William W. Cur-tis, and Stephen P.

Devere:1976. Optimal Stimulation Level and the Adoption Decision Process. Journal of

Consumer Research, 3:September, pp. 84–94

[70] Naseri, M. B., & Elliot, G. 2011. Role of demographics, social connectedness and prior

Internet experience in adoption of online shopping: Applications for direct marketing.

Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 19:2, pp. 69-84

[71] Ostlund, Lyman E. 1974. Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of

Innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Research, 1:September, pp. 23–29

[72] Parasuraman, A. 2000. Technology Readiness Construct:TRI): A Multiple-Item Scale to

Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2:4, pp.

307–320.

[73] Plummer.K. 1981. The Making the Modern homosexual. London:Hutchingson

[74] Radenakers, Martijn:2005. Corporate universities: driving force of knowledge innovation.

Journal of Workplace Learning; 2005; 17, 1/2; ABI/INFORM Global, pp. 130

[75] Raju, P.S. 1980. Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, emographics,

and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research , Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 272-282.

[76] Reid, S.E. and de Brentani, U. 2004. The fuzzy front end of new product development for

discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 170-184

[77] Robert D. Retherford. 1993. Statistical Models for Causal Analysis. Honolulu

Hawaii:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[78] Robertson and Yoram Wind:1980. Organizational Psychograph-ics and Innovativeness.

Journal of Consumer Research, 7:June, pp. 24–31

[79] Robertson TS. Innovative Behavior And Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston; 1971

[80] Robertson, Joan Zielinski, and Scott Ward:1984. Consumer Behavior. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman.

[81] Robertson, Thomas S. 1971. Innovative Behavior and Com-munication. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston

[82] Roehrich, G. 2004. Consumer Innovativeness Concepts and Measurements. Journal of

Business Research, 57:6, pp. 671-677

[83] Roehrich, G., Valette-Florence, P., & Ferrandi, J.-M. 2003. An Exploration of the

Relationship between Innate Innovativeness and Domain Specific Innovativeness. Asia

Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 5, pp. 379-386.

[84] Rogers and F.F. Shoemaker:1971. Communication of Innova-tions. New York: The Free

Pres

[85] Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovation , The Free Press, New York, NY.



[86] Ruvio, A. and A. Shoham. 2007. Innovativeness, Exploratory Behavior; Market

Mavenship, and Opinion Leadership: an Empirical Examination in the Asia Context.

Psychology & Marketing, 24, pp. 703–722

[87] Sanitthangkula, Joompoth;dkk. 2012. Factors Affecting Consumer Attitude toward the

Use of Eco-car Vehicles. Journal International (Spring) Conference on Asia Pacific

Business Innovation and Technology Management

[88] Saputra, Rico dan Semuel, Hatane. 2013. Analisa Pengaruh Motivasi, Persepsi, Sikap

Konsumen Terhadap Keputusan Pembelian Mobil Daihatsu Xenia di Sidoarjo. Jurnal

Manajemen PemasaranVol. 1, No. 1, hal. 1-12

[89] Schaninger, Charles M. 1976. Perceived Risk and Person-ality. Journal of Consumer

Research, 3:2, pp. 95–100

[90] Schiffman, L.G., Kanuk, L.L. 2004. Consumer Behavior, Prentice Hall, Pearson

Education International, pp. 517-540

[91] Shugan, Steven M. 1980. The Cost of Thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 7:2, pp.

99–112

[92] Singarimbun, Masri.1995. Metode Penelititan Survei. LP3S, Jakarta

[93] Solomon. David J. 2013. Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article

Processing Charges. Research Libraries UK

[94] Sood, A. and Tellis, G.J. 2005. Technological evolution and radical innovation. Journal of

Marketing , Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 152-168

[95] Sorournejad, S., Monadjemi, A., Kharazian, M.A. 2011. ―Resistance of mobile payment

Iranian perspective‖, 2011 International Conference on Economicsand Finance Research ,

IV, pp. 395-398

[96] Steenkamp and Steven M. Burgess. 2002. Optimum Stimulation Level and Exploratory

Consumer Behavior in an Emerging Consumer Market, International Journal of Research

in Marketing, 19:2, pp. 131–50

[97] Steenkamp, J.E.M., Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. 1999. A cross-national investigation into

the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of

Marketing , Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 55-69

[98] Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Hans Baumgartner. 1992. The Role of Optimum

Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,

pp. 434–48

[99] Sugiyono, 2009, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D, Bandung : Alfabeta

[100] Suoranta, M. & Mattila, M. 2004, Mobile Banking and Consumer Behaviour:

Newinsights into The Diffusion Pattern‖, Journal of Financial ServicesMarketing VIII:4,

pp. 354– 366

[101] Tellis, Gerard J., 2003. Stefan Stremersch, and Eden Yin, ―The International Takeoff of

New Products: The Role of Econom-ics, Culture, and Country Innovativeness,‖ Marketing

Science, 22:2, pp. 188–208

[102] Umar, Husein, 2001. Riset Akuntansi: Metode Riset Sebagai Cara Penelitian Ilmiah,

Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta.

[103] Van der Heijden, H. 2003. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS

Quarterly, 28:4, pp. 695-704.

[104] Venkatesan, Meera P. 1973. Cognitive Consistency and Nov-elty Seeking. in Consumer

Behavior: Theoretical Sources, Scott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson, eds. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 355–384




[105] Venkatraman and Linda L. Price:1990. Differentiating Between Cognitive and Sensory

Innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 20:4, pp. 293–315

[106] Venkatraman, M. P., & MacInnis, D. J. 1985. An investigation of the epistemic and

sensory exploratory behaviours of hedonic and cognitive consumers. Advances in

Consumer Research, 12:1, pp. 102-107.

[107] Venkatraman, Meera P. 1991. The Impact of Innovativeness and Innovation Type on

Adoption, Journal of Retailing, 67:1, pp. 51–67.

[108] Veryzer, R.W. 2005. The roles of marketing and industrial design in discontinuous new

product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 22-

41

[109] Wahlers RG, Dunn MG, Etzel MJ. 1986. The convergence of alternative OSL measures

with consumer exploratory behavior tendencies. In: Richard JL, editor. Advances in

consumer research, vol. 13. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 398-402.

[110] Wilke J, Sorvillo N. 2003. Targeting early adopters: a means for new product survival.

Consum Insights; 5:1, pp. 15-17

[111] Wind, J. and Mahajan, V. 1997. Issues and opportunities in new product development: an

introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-12

[112] Zeelenberg, Marcel and Rik Pieters 2004. Beyond Valence in Customer Dissatisfaction:

A Review and New Findings on Behavioral Responses to Regret and Disappointment in

Failed Services. Journal of Business Research, 57:4, pp. 445–455

Documents

THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TOWARD ......Consumers are more interested in cellular phones with Android operating systems that are currently very popular among consumers. Based on