The proposed model

Figure 2.2 presents the conceptual model and hypotheses designed to address the research question.

108 Figure 2.2: The conceptual model

109 2.8.2 A consumer’s psychological predisposition to rapidly upgrade, (PPRU construct)

Published literature over the past 40 years (Jacoby 1971, Hirshman 1980, Rogers 1995, Im et al., 2007, Choa et al., 2012) has concluded that there is a clear association between consumer personality characteristics and first-time product adoption. However, Huh and Kim (2008) suggest that not all early first-time adopters become quicker upgraders and that post-adoption usage is a good indicator of upgrade speed.

The psychological propensities that have been selected from the literature review to test in this study are outlined below.

Domain-specific innovativeness (DSI)

Goldsmith and Hofacker, (1991). Im et al. (2007) found that, of all the types of consumer innovativeness, only DSI appears to have a significant association with new and really new product adoption.

Desire for unique consumer products (DUCP)

Lynn and Harris (1992) state that products are often used by consumers as symbols of status and success, but that only unique products can offer sufficient status. Therefore, competitively driven and status-minded consumers desire ownership of unique consumer products.

Materialism

Richins and Dawson (1992) claim that materialists place possessions and the acquisition of such possessions at the centre of their lives. Goldsmith and Clarke (2012) suggest that materialism is positively related to buying products that confer status.

Market mavenism (MM)

Feick and Price (1987) report that market mavens demonstrate early

awareness of new products through the reporting of such new products and specific brands across several product categories. Edison and Geissler (2011)

110 suggest that market mavens have an affinity with technology, are more likely to be risk takers and can disseminate both positive and negative information to other consumers, and are therefore considered a powerful group of

consumers in the electronics field.

Brand loyalty

Brand loyalty is described by Jacoby (1971) as ‘the tendency to prefer and purchase more of one brand than of others’. With specific reference to

electronic products, Belk and Tumbat (2005) have identified a series of myths that surround a brand for its believers and true followers. Quoquab et al.

(2014) conclude that, in addition to multi-brand loyals, there are sole-brand loyals, switchers and cross-buyers. Taute and Sierra (2014) suggest that brand tribalism is made up of consumers who share similar traditions, a kinship and moral obligations to the brand.

Together these reflect the consumer’s psychological predisposition to rapidly upgrade (PPRU). The hypotheses relating to this construct are:

H1: A consumer’s psychological predisposition to rapidly upgrade (PPRU) has a significant and positive impact on speed of upgrade (SOU).

H6: A consumer’s psychological predisposition to rapidly upgrade (PPRU) has a significant impact on vicarious adoption (VA).

H7: A consumer’s psychological predisposition to rapidly upgrade (PPRU) has a significant impact on vicarious innovativeness (VI).

H8: A consumer’s psychological predisposition to rapidly upgrade (PPRU) has a significant impact on disposal orientation (DO).

111 2.8.3 The influence of product factors, (PF contrsuct)

The previous literature has identified associations between product factors and first-time adoption (Davis, 1986, Gill, 2008). This study seeks to further test these theories in the rapid upgrading context of consumer electronics. As evidenced in the earlier literature reviewed in this chapter, product factors can be subdivided into the areas outlined below.

Price and perceived price/value

Holak and Lehmann (1990) conclude that reward and price are important considerations in the adoption of innovations. Bayus (1991) has found that late replacement buyers are more likely to replace because of a sales promotion. Danaher et al. (2001) identified that the pattern of declining price elasticity in durable products such as cellular phones, as observed by Parker and Neelamegham (1997), holds true for a multiple-generation technology product. Okada (2006) states that consumers find it easier to ignore the sunk costs when upgrading to new products when the new version is dissimilar to the existing one. Lui (2013) showed that, with regards to consumers stating upgrade intentions for computer products, bundle deals (such as a combined sale of a computer and printer) are more effective than free gifts. Jacoby et al., (1977) suggests that disposal choices may be influenced by intrinsic product factors such as; initial cost, value and precieved replacement cost.

Antonides, (1991) found support for Jacoby et al., (1977), when investigating white goods, stating that 99% of disposal (scrapping) decisions were for value or perceived value defects.

Knowledge of features and ease of use

Holak and Lehmann (1990) state that new products are better accepted by consumers if they are compatible with the consumers’ existing habits of use of similar products. Bayus (1991) has identified that early replacement buyers are more likely to replace for a desire for new features. Okada (2006) claims

112 that upgraders seek new features rather than improvements on the existing.

In addition, they prefer a few key features rather than a general improvement of all features. Holak and Lehmann (1990) suggest that quality of innovation is an important consideration in the adoption of innovations. Bayus (1991) found that early replacement buyers are more likely to replace for reasons of

technical improvement. Cripps and Meyer (1994) demonstrated that the fear of obsolescence in an incumbent good has more influence on replacement decisions than the perception of performance deterioration in the incumbent good. Tseng and Lo (2011) found no empirical association between the ‘ease of use’ (TAM – Davis et al., 1989) and a consumer’s intention to upgrade to the next version of a mobile phone. Jacoby et al., (1977) suggests that disposal choices may be influenced by sutuational product factors such as

‘functional use’, p26.

Together these reflect the influence of product factors. The hypotheses relating to this construct are:

H2: Product factors (PF) have a significant and positive impact on speed of upgrade (SOU).

H9: Product factors (PF) have a significant impact on disposal orientation (DO).

H11: Product factors (PF) have a significant impact on vicarious adoption (VA).