The adoption process

As noted in the previous section, the adoption process focuses on the cognitive processes, those internal to the individual. Central to the adoption process is the decision process that a person goes through in considering the adoption of a new idea or product. This process consists of a series of actions and decisions over time through which an individual evaluates the new idea and decides whether or not to incorporate the innovation into ongoing practice (Rogers, 1995).

The decision process associated to the adoption of innovations has been characterised as a special type of hierarchy of effects. An early view on the decision process viewed it as encompassing five stages: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). However, this version was criticised, notably because it implied that the process should always end with adoption. Recognising this limitation, Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) proposed a model comprising four stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision and confirmation. Unlike the preceding sequence, the innovation-decision model did not imply a specific outcome (adoption) but rather encompassed the two possible outcomes: adoption and rejection. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) pointed out that this process was more consistent with the learning process.

A more recent version (Figure 2.8) of this learning model, which Rogers named as the

‘innovation decision process’, proposes a process consisting of five stages (Rogers, 1995).

A stage between the decision and confirmation stages (the implementation stage) was introduced to account for the situation where the individual puts an innovation into use without full commitment. Although the innovation process suggested by Rogers is knowledge-persuasion-decision, he acknowledges that the process can also follow different patterns, notably it can be knowledge-decision-persuasion.

Figure 2. 8: The adoption process Source: Rogers (1995)

Being viewed in many ways as a learning process, one of the underlying assumptions of the innovation-decision process is that the process is oriented towards the reduction of uncertainty about not only how to use the innovation, but also about the consequences of adoption and rejection. Hence, learning plays a central role in that it is through learning (acquired either from communication or experimentation) that uncertainty is reduced (Rogers, 1995).

An alternative conceptualisation of the innovation decision process was put forward by Klonglan and Coward (1970). They presented a two stage model of the adoption process,

Knowledge

Knowledge PersuasionPersuasion DecisionDecision ImplementationImplementation ConfirmationConfirmation

based on the premise that a new product necessarily involves both an idea and an object, with corresponding symbolic and action forms of adoption (Mittelstaedt et al., 1976). The first stage involves the symbolic adoption or rejection of the idea, after evaluating it.

Symbolic acceptance is a necessary condition to proceed to the second stage of the model, which involves overt action. Trial always precedes use adoption, but does not necessarily lead to use adoption. The emphasis on symbolic adoption results from the fact that individuals may symbolically accept the idea associated with the product but, for a number of reasons, be unwilling or unable to move onto the overt action stage (i.e. trial) (Mittelstaedt et al., 1976).

The Klonglan and Coward (1970) model was criticised for implicitly denying the possibility that some people may use a trial as their informational input for evaluation (Mittelstaedt et al., 1976). Mittelstaedt and colleagues reject this assumption because, they argue, there are individuals who seek direct experience and are predisposed to form their evaluation on the basis of a trial purchase. They showed that sensation seeking was associated with the predisposition for direct action (i.e. trial), with high sensation seekers tending to push through the evaluation phase to actual trial.

Whatever the model, there is some debate on what is ‘adoption’. Rogers (1995) argues that adoption refers to the decision to incorporate the innovation into ongoing practice.

However, as Mittelstaedt et al. (1976) and Antil (1988) noted, most studies on consumer adoption of innovations have purchase of a product as criterion for defining adopters.

Antil (1988) and Gatignon and Robertson (1985) pointed that adoption is conceptually defined as continuous use but operationally defined as initial use. Similarly to Kronglan and Coward (1970), Antil (1988) proposed the distinction between psychological adoption and behavioural adoption. However, while to Kronglan and Coward (1970) psychological adoption is an antecedent of behavioural adoption, Antil (1988) argues that adoption involves both psychological and behavioural commitment over time.

Gatignon and Robertson (1985) supported the view that for many products repeat purchase is key to adoption and added that it is important to assess adoption in terms of both width and depth. According to the authors, width is the number of different uses for the product and depth the amount of usage or the purchase of related products.

A brief explanation of each stage is will be carried out with reference to the work of Rogers (1995), complemented by the work of others.

1^st stage - knowledge

Knowledge occurs when an individual is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains some understanding of how it functions. There are three broad types of knowledge (Rogers, 1995). Awareness-knowledge is the knowledge associated with the understanding that the innovation exists. How-to knowledge refers to the knowledge about how to use the innovation. Finally, principles-knowledge refers to the functioning principles of the innovation. In other words, this last type of knowledge addresses why things work the way they do. To adopt an innovation the first two types of knowledge are sufficient.

The formation of knowledge is influenced by several factors. One such factor is the predispositions of the individuals, notably the degree of self-exposure and selective perception (Rogers, 1995). The existence of communication channels from which the individual can receive information is another factor that influences the formation of knowledge.

Communication channels can de divided into two main groups: mass media channels and interpersonal channels (Rogers, 1995). Awareness-knowledge is usually gained through mass media channels. In contrast, how-to knowledge and principles knowledge are likely to be gained through either mass media or interpersonal means. In general, impersonal sources are more prevalent early in the decision process and personal sources later in the decision process (Rogers, 1995; Midgley, 1977; Reynolds and Darden, 1972; Robertson, 1971). Therefore, the extent to which the innovation is covered in the media affects awareness, and consequently, the adoption of the innovation.

Besides the predispositions of the individual and the communication channels, the awareness of an innovation is also influenced by the social context of the individual. For example, the social system in which the individual lives may, or may not, provide the opportunities to contact with messages regarding the innovation. Within a social system, the greater the number of adopters of an innovation, the greater the probability of an individual to be exposed to messages about the innovation. Hence, belonging to a social system which has partially adopted the innovation facilitates the development of awareness about that innovation.

One underlying assumption of the adoption process is that the individual adopts the innovation when the level of knowledge is sufficient to reduce the uncertainty of the outcomes of adoption to acceptable levels. The reduction of uncertainty is achieved through the collection of more information about the innovation. As Daghfous et al.

(1999) noted, individuals are usually faced with an abundance of information (advertising, word-of-mouth). However, it has been pointed out that this can lead to information overload. In simple terms, information overload involves too much information too soon with not enough time to digest it (Herbig and Kramer, 1994). Information overload can inhibit user decision-making, and consequently have a deterrent effect on the adoption process (Ostlund, 1974; Herbig and Kramer, 1994; Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Rogers, 1995).

The basic contention is that consideration of a new idea does not go beyond the knowledge function if the individual does not regard the information as relevant to his or her situation or if sufficient knowledge is not obtained to become adequately informed so that persuasion can take place (Rogers, 1995).

2^nd stage - persuation

The second stage in the innovation-decision process is persuasion, which occurs when an individual forms a favourable or unfavourable attitude toward the innovation. At this stage exposure to the innovation remains important (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). However, as noted earlier, whereas at the initial stages in the adoption process mass media are likely to be the main source of information, from the persuasion stage onwards individuals are more likely to be influenced by both mass media and interpersonal channels. The main reason for this change is due to the fact that interpersonal channels tend to emphasise more the personal value of the innovation (Rogers, 1995; Agarwal and Prasad, 1998). Therefore, the adoption of an innovation is influenced by the extent to which individuals have discussion opportunities with others from which re-inforcement of their beliefs about the innovation can be obtained (Rogers, 1995; Midgley and Dowling, 1978). Some examples of interpersonal sources include opinion leaders (Rogers, 1995; Feick and Price, 1987), market mavens (Feick and Price, 1987) and innovative communicators (Baumgarten, 1975).

Whether originating from opinions leaders, market mavens or innovative communicators, there is a positive relationship between the signal of the message received and the probability of purchase, with favourable word-of-mouth increasing the probability of purchase and unfavourable word-of-mouth decreasing it (Arndt, 1967). In general, non-adopters and rejectors tend to be more subject to, and convey more, negative messages (Leonard-Barton, 1985; Reynolds and Darden, 1972; Arndt, 1967).

During the persuasion stage the individual is expected to engage in the process of vicarious trial (Rogers, 1995). This mental trial is carried out to assess the extent to which the innovation has the potential to become the best course of action. The more the innovation is evaluated as the best course of action, the more positive the attitude will be. In the study of the adoption of innovations, attitude has been assessed in terms of perceived innovation attributes, such as relative advantage, compatibility and complexity. These and other attributes will be fully examined in section 3.3.2.

3^rd stage - decision

The third stage of the adoption process is decision, whichoccurs when an individual engages in activities that lead to the verdict of whether to adopt or reject the innovation (Rogers, 1995). Adoption is the decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action available while rejection is a decision not to make use of the innovation. According to Rogers (1995), there are two types of rejection. Active rejection consists of not adopting an innovation after considering its adoption. If an individual never considers the use of the innovation, then it is a case of passive rejection.

One major influence on the decision of whether to adopt or not is the extent to which an innovation can be experimented with before a full commitment is made (Rogers, 1995), that is, if trial of the innovation is possible. The adoption process is characterised by the reduction of uncertainty about an innovation’s consequences and trial is a way of reducing this level of uncertainty. It does not commit the individual to any great extent and enables him/her to assess the outcomes based on his/her own experience.

The decision to adopt or not the innovation is also influenced by a number of psychological factors. These include the innovativeness of the individual and his/her

creativity, which is the ability of the individual to see opportunities in using the innovation (Hirschman, 1980). In addition, the decision to adopt or reject the innovation is guided by the extent to which it will influence his/her position in the social system (Rogers, 1995;

Fisher and Price, 1992; Gatignon and Robertson, 1991; Ram and Sheth, 1989; Robertson, 1971). For example, an individual might have developed a positive attitude towards adopting the innovation but if the innovation is not in harmony with the norms of reference groups, the decision is likely to be for rejecting the innovation.

4^th stage – implementation

If a decision to use the innovation is made (adoption), the individual is likely to put that decision into practice, unless it is held up by the lack of resources, such as, in the case of ICT, the lack of the technology or the lack of knowledge on how to use it. This is the implementation stage. The innovation decision process distinguishes between initial use (implementation) and continuous use (confirmation) for two main reasons. First, initial usage of the innovation may not always be sufficient to fully derive the benefits desired from it (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997). Second, initial usage may take place with the single aim to gather information about the innovation so that a final decision to fully use it or not can be reached (Mittelstaedt et al., 1976; Park and Mittal, 1985). Often, the innovation encompasses more than one function. In such cases, individuals can adopt only selected aspects of the innovation and reject others.

5^th stage – confirmation

Implementation may continue for a lengthy period of time, depending on the nature of the innovation. Up to the decision stage, the process is purely psychological. Conversely, the implementation stage involves overt behaviour. However, the point at which implementation becomes confirmation is more controversial. The central tenet is that the confirmation stage starts when the new idea becomes an institutionalised and regularised part of the adopter’s ongoing practice. More specifically, confirmation starts when the individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made, either by confirming a previous decision to adopt (continued adoption) or by rejecting the

innovation (discontinuance). Discontinuance may be caused by a number of factors, such as replacement by a new idea and disenchantment.

LaTour and Roberts (1992) suggest that the confirmation stage starts when the innovation is culturally anchored, that is, “when a product becomes inextrinsicably part of a consumer’s life and sociocultural surroundings” (p. 29). LaTour and Roberts (1992) argue that an innovation that is culturally anchored leads to a greater dependency over time, leading to a grater propensity to replacement or ‘re-anchoring’ by the next generation of technological innovations.

There are several elements that influence the adoption process. One of these elements is the nature of the innovation. One of the earliest definitions of innovation was put forward by Rogers (1962). Innovation was defined as ‘an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption’ (Rogers, 1962). However, this conceptualisation of innovation was criticised by authors such as Reynolds and Wells (1977) and Gatignon and Robertson (1991) who argued that the definition was difficult to operationalise, omitted important considerations and relied on the potential adopter perception.

In order to identify the boundaries of the concept of innovation, and to reduce its ambiguity, several authors have attempted to provide a classification for innovations.

Robertson (1971) suggested that an analysis of the effects of innovation upon established patterns of consumption would contribute to the operationalisation of the concept. He suggested three categories based on an innovation continuum:

• Discontinuous innovations involve the establishment of a new product and the establishment of new behaviours. The innovation differs from other products in several relevant features;

• Dynamically continuous innovations have some disrupting effects upon established patterns, but does not generally alter established patterns;

• Continuous innovations have the least disruptive influence of established patterns.

Usually involves the alteration of an existing product rather than a completely new one.

This continuum was criticised by Reynolds and Wells (1977), because an innovation that is continuous for one consumer may be discontinuous for another. To face this critic, Rogers

(1995) argued that the classification should be based on the perceptions of the majority of the individuals in the social system. The principle associated with innovation research is that any innovation creates a degree of change in consumer’s day-to-day existence and disrupts their established patterns. Hence, it can be expected that the higher the discontinuity (i.e. the higher the change and disruption) the higher the resistance is likely to be (Ram and Sheth, 1989).

A different perspective was put forward by Hirschman (1981). She suggested approaching the nature of innovations not in terms of the proportion of common or non-common attributes but on the dimensions along which those attributes are added to the product.

The framework posits that innovations are generated primarily along two major dimensions: symbolism and technology. She argued that the source of innovation influences the properties of the innovation and the principles by which it diffuses. An innovation that is symbolic in nature “is one which communicates a different social meaning than it did previously” (p. 537). Symbolic innovations are already physically present in the market and they are regarded as innovations because they assume a new social meaning. In other words, the intangible attributes of the product, not the tangible ones, are what makes an innovation to be symbolic. Conversely, an innovation that is technologically new “possesses some tangible features never previously found in that product class” (p. 538). While symbolic innovations may have been physically present in the society for a period of time, technological innovations have never existed in their present form prior to creation. The innovations can be classified according to the level of social symbolism and technology.

She used this framework to criticise research on adoption, which has concentrated on the adoption of technological innovations and has neglected the adoption of symbolic innovations.

The adoption of innovations is a dynamic process which goes from first hearing about an innovation to its adoption or rejection (Rogers, 1995; Midgley, 1977). Hence time is closely linked with the innovation-decision process. Some individuals may pass through the innovation decision process in a short period of time, while for others this process may be lengthy. However, despite the importance of time in the study of adoption of innovations, most studies are static and do not make any attempt at studying the process over time (Rogers, 1995; Midgley, 1977; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). The few longitudinal studies conducted include Midgley and Dowling’s (1993) study on the relationship between innovativeness and social messages.

As an external input to the adoption process, the marketing of the innovation exerts a strong influence on the adoption process (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991; Robertson, 1971). The marketing activities are related to issues such as price, product, placement and promotion of the innovation (Kotler et al., 1998). Yet, this has been a largely forgotten area in the adoption of innovations literature (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991; Frambach et al., 1998).

Moreover, the little research focusing on marketing has been developed within an organisational context rather than a consumer context.

Implicit in past research is a monopolistic marketing activity, with a single change agent involved (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991). However, innovations diffuse within a competitive environment whereby multiple suppliers provide the same innovation with differentiated products or brands. One of the consequences of a highly competitive environment is that (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991, p. 341)

“additional resources [are] devoted to [the] communication of the innovation, [which] improve consumer knowledge about the product and, therefore, help [to] develop the market potential and enhance the speed with which this potential is realised”.

Competing activities influence adoption notably when there are network externalities involved. Network externalities occur when the adoption of an innovation depends (positively) on the extent to which prior adoption by other individuals has occurred (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991).