IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2412.13556.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Analysis of the Relationship Between the Characteristics of Innovative Consumers and the Degree of Serious Leisure in User Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Taichi Abe
  • Yasunobu Morita

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between the concept of serious leisure and user innovation. We adopted the characteristics of innovative consumers identified by Luthje (2004)-product use experience, information exchange, and new product adoption speed-to analyze their correlation with serious leisure engagement. The analysis utilized consumer behavior survey data from the "Marketing Analysis Contest 2023" sponsored by Nomura Research Institute, examining the relationship between innovative consumer characteristics and the degree of serious leisure (Serious Leisure Inventory and Measure: SLIM). Since the contest data did not directly measure innovative consumer characteristics or serious leisure engagement, we established alternative variables for quantitative analysis. The results showed that the SLIM alternative variable had positive correlations with diverse product experiences and early adoption of new products. However, no clear relationship was found with information exchange among consumers. These findings suggest that serious leisure practice may serve as a potential antecedent to user innovation. The leisure career perspective of the serious leisure concept may capture the motivations of user innovators that Okada and Nishikawa (2019) identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Taichi Abe & Yasunobu Morita, 2024. "An Analysis of the Relationship Between the Characteristics of Innovative Consumers and the Degree of Serious Leisure in User Innovation," Papers 2412.13556, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2412.13556
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.13556
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Schreier & Stefan Oberhauser & Reinhard Prügl, 2007. "Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 15-30, June.
    2. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Lars Frederiksen, 2006. "Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 45-63, February.
    3. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    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. Alexander Brem & Volker Bilgram & Adele Gutstein, 2021. "Involving Lead Users in Innovation: A Structured Summary of Research on the Lead User Method," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Alexander Brem (ed.), Emerging Issues and Trends in INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, chapter 2, pages 21-48, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Dharmawan, Magha P., 2019. "Does lead userness foster idea implementation and diffusion? A study of internal shopfloor users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 289-297.
    3. Li Wang & Yuan Yang & Yishuai Li, 2021. "Extending lead-user theory to a virtual brand community: the roles of flow experience and trust," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(5), pages 618-643, November.
    4. Globocnik, Dietfried & Faullant, Rita, 2021. "Do lead users cooperate with manufacturers in innovation? Investigating the missing link between lead userness and cooperation initiation with manufacturers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Xuefeng Zhang, 2019. "User selection for collaboration in product development based on QFD and DEA approach," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 2231-2243, June.
    6. Maria Roszkowska-Menkes, 2017. "User Innovation: State of the Art and Perspectives for Future Research," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 13(2), pages 127-154.
    7. Brem, Alexander & Bilgram, Volker & Marchuk, Anna, 2019. "How crowdfunding platforms change the nature of user innovation – from problem solving to entrepreneurship," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 348-360.
    8. Thierry BURGER-HELMCHEN & Claude GUITTARD, 2008. "Are Users The Next Entrepreneurs? A Case Study On The Video Game Industry," Working Papers of BETA 2008-14, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    9. Sladjana Nørskov & Yun Mi Antorini & Morten Berg Jensen, 2019. "Innovative Brand Community Members and Their Willingness to Share Ideas with Companies," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Alexander Brem & Joe Tidd & Tugrul Daim (ed.), Managing Innovation Understanding and Motivating Crowds, chapter 6, pages 145-169, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Embedded lead users—The benefits of employing users for corporate innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 168-180.
    11. Chong Yu & Masatoshi Kato, 2024. "Does user entrepreneurship matter for start-up financing? Evidence from Japan," Discussion Paper Series 275, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University.
    12. Fiedler, Jakob & Schorn, André & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2023. "The influence of risk classification and community affiliation on the acceptance of user-innovated medical devices," Working Papers 115, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    13. Ruo-Yu Liang & Wei Guo & Ling-Hao Zhang & Lei Wang, 2019. "Investigating Sustained Participation in Open Design Community in China: The Antecedents of User Loyalty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    15. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    16. Lettl, Christopher & Rost, Katja & von Wartburg, Iwan, 2009. "Why are some independent inventors 'heroes' and others 'hobbyists'? The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 243-254, March.
    17. Alfonso Gambardella & Christina Raasch & Eric von Hippel, 2017. "The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1450-1468, May.
    18. Kinsuk Mani Sinha & Pamela Adams & Franco Malerba, 2015. "Intermediate Users as a Source of Innovation in a Development Context: Empirical Evidence and Theory," Globelics Working Paper Series 2015-14, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    19. Pollok, Patrick & Amft, André & Diener, Kathleen & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2021. "Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    20. Powell, J.P., 2010. "The limits of economic self-interest : The case of open source software," Other publications TiSEM fc6d2aa1-8b29-40be-b888-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2412.13556. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.