IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i9p1579-1590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of SME entrepreneurs' innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations

Author

Listed:
  • Marcati, Alberto
  • Guido, Gianluigi
  • Peluso, Alessandro M.

Abstract

Entrepreneurs' innovativeness and personality play a key role in the adoption of innovations in Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). Following two complementary approaches, this study conceptualizes innovativeness at two levels of abstraction: general innovativeness (GI), that is, the degree of openness to newness; and specific innovativeness (SI), that is, the predisposition to be among the firsts to adopt innovations in a specific domain. This study measures GI and SI on a sample of SME entrepreneurs by using two different scales that are based on inventories extensively used in this field (i.e., the KAI [Kirton, J.M., 1976. Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (5), 622-629; Kirton, J.M., 2003. Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change. Routledge, London] and DSI [Goldsmith, R.E., Hofacker, C.F., 1991. Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19 (3), 209-222] inventories) and tests their effects on the entrepreneurs' intention to adopt innovations. Secondly, this study relates entrepreneurs' innovativeness (both GI and SI) to their basic personality traits as assessed through the Five-Factor Model of human personality (cf. [Digman, J.M., 1990. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 41 (1), 417-440; McCrae, R.R., John, O.P., 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its implications. Journal of Personality 60 (2), 1-26]). Finally, it compares the predictive power of both GI and SI on the entrepreneurs' intention to adopt innovations against that of a cognitive model that represents the framework of reference in this field (i.e., the Theory of Planned Behavior [Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2), 179-211]). Results suggest a number of implications for entrepreneurs, managers, and policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcati, Alberto & Guido, Gianluigi & Peluso, Alessandro M., 2008. "The role of SME entrepreneurs' innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1579-1590, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:9:p:1579-1590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(08)00144-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    2. Becker, Gary S., 1992. "The Economic Way of Looking at Life," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 1992-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    3. Midgley, David F & Dowling, Grahame R, 1978. "Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 4(4), pages 229-242, March.
    4. Midgley, David F & Dowling, Grahame R, 1993. "A Longitudinal Study of Product Form Innovation: The Interaction between Predispositions and Social Messages," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(4), pages 611-625, March.
    5. David A. Harrison & Peter P. Mykytyn & Cynthia K. Riemenschneider, 1997. "Executive Decisions About Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical Tests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 171-195, June.
    6. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    7. Batjargal, Bat, 2007. "Internet entrepreneurship: Social capital, human capital, and performance of Internet ventures in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 605-618, June.
    8. Hirschman, Elizabeth C, 1980. "Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(3), pages 283-295, December.
    9. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    10. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    11. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kathrin Dudenhöffer, 2013. "Why electric vehicles failed," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 95-124, July.
    2. Małecka, Agnieszka & Mitręga, Maciej & Mróz-Gorgoń, Barbara & Pfajfar, Gregor, 2022. "Adoption of collaborative consumption as sustainable social innovation: Sociability and novelty seeking perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 163-179.
    3. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    4. Johan Jansson, 2011. "Consumer eco‐innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product characteristics," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 192-210, March.
    5. Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M. & Barberá-Tomás,David & Edwards-Schachter,Mónica, 2015. "The impact of one of the most highly cited university patents: formalisation and localization," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201502, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 03 Jan 2017.
    6. Kwabena Frimpong & Obaid Al-Shuridah & Alan Wilson & Frederick Asafo-Adjei Sarpong, 2017. "Effect of inherent innovativeness and consumer readiness on attitudes to mobile banking," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(4), pages 187-201, December.
    7. Faridi, Amir Ali & Kavoosi-Kalashami, Mohammad & Bilali, Hamid El, 2020. "Attitude components affecting adoption of soil and water conservation measures by paddy farmers in Rasht County, Northern Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Kim, Jiyeon & Forsythe, Sandra, 2008. "Adoption of Virtual Try-on technology for online apparel shopping," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 45-59.
    9. Pranpreya Sriwannawit & Ulf Sandström, 2015. "Large-scale bibliometric review of diffusion research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1615-1645, February.
    10. Eun-Jung Kim & Jinkyung Jenny Kim & Sang-Ho Han, 2021. "Understanding Student Acceptance of Online Learning Systems in Higher Education: Application of Social Psychology Theories with Consideration of User Innovativeness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Asrar Ahmed Sabir & Iftikhar Ahmad & Hassan Ahmad & Muhammad Rafiq & Muhammad Asghar Khan & Neelum Noreen, 2023. "Consumer Acceptance and Adoption of AI Robo-Advisors in Fintech Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    12. Vandecasteele, Bert & Geuens, Maggie, 2010. "Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 308-318.
    13. Hoffmann, Stefan & Soyez, Katja, 2010. "A cognitive model to predict domain-specific consumer innovativeness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 778-785, July.
    14. Casaló, Luis V. & Flavián, Carlos & Ibáñez-Sánchez, Sergio, 2021. "Be creative, my friend! Engaging users on Instagram by promoting positive emotions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 416-425.
    15. Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Nripendra P. Rana & Anand Jeyaraj & Marc Clement & Michael D. Williams, 2019. "Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 719-734, June.
    16. Hwang, Jinsoo & Kim, Jinkyung Jenny & Lee, Kwang-Woo, 2021. "Investigating consumer innovativeness in the context of drone food delivery services: Its impact on attitude and behavioral intentions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    17. Nastjuk, Ilja & Herrenkind, Bernd & Marrone, Mauricio & Brendel, Alfred Benedikt & Kolbe, Lutz M., 2020. "What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Markus Blut & Cheng Wang, 2020. "Technology readiness: a meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the construct and its impact on technology usage," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 649-669, July.
    19. John Hauser & Gerard J. Tellis & Abbie Griffin, 2006. "Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 687-717, 11-12.
    20. Huang, Tony Cheng-Kui & Liu, Chuang-Chun & Chang, Dong-Cheng, 2012. "An empirical investigation of factors influencing the adoption of data mining tools," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 257-270.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:9:p:1579-1590. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.