Perceived Innovation Attributes as

Predictors of Innovativeness
LYMAN E. OSTLUND*
Two studies are reported that apply diffusion theory to two new consumer
products. The research objective in both studies was to discriminate
buyers from non buyers using the personal characteristics of respondents
and ~hei~ perceptions of each new product and thereby also to assess the
rel~tlve Importance of the predictor variables. In both studies perceptual
variables are found far more successful as predictors of the purchase
outcome than respondent personal characteristics.

or would not adopt the innovation, that is, the innovativeness of in~ividuals. According to the Rogers
(~ 962: 307) adoptIon model perceived innovation attrIbutes are supposed to provide the framework for
the evaluation. of an innovation by the potential adopter,
but Rogers dId not refer to this kind of research in
his typology of "analyses completed or possible by
diffusion researchers" (Rogers, 1962: 73), nor does the
expanded typology by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971:
72-73).
. ~he importance of perceptual variables in determInIng purchase behavior is well established in marketing literature. The extensive application of multidimensional scaling to develop so-called perceptual maps
~as been the most recent approach to such investigatIon (Green and Carmone, 1970; Johnson, 1971 ;
Lehmann, 1971; NeideIl, 1969; Steffire, 1969). It
seem~ therefore opportune that perceptual variables,
that IS, perceived innovation attributes, assume greater
attention in diffusion studies.
It ~hould be understood that predicting the rate of
adoptIOn from perceived innovation attributes is a far
eaSier. statisti~al .t~k than to predict adoption or nonad~ptIon by IndlV1du~ls. Rate of adoption is an aggregatI~~ measure res~ltI!lg from many separate adoption
decIsIO~s. I!l e!f~ct It IS a group average. In attempting
to predIct IndIVIdual adoption decision outcomes, the
sources of error are commensurately increased. Thus,
one must not expect too much accuracy from any set
of predictors.
The purpose of this paper is to present the results
of two studies wherein the Rogers set of perceived
innovation attribute dimensions were used to predict
the innovativeness of housewives and to contrast these
results with the predictive efficacy of commonly used
respondent personal characteristic dimensions. In both
studies it was hypothesized that the perceptual vari-

Diffusi.on theory within sociology concerns the

of a new concept or object, termed an
Innovation, among members of a defined social system.
Mo.st di~usion studies have been conducted by rural
soclologtsts and have concerned new farming methods
or implements. The most common study has centered
on th~ innovativeness (incidence of early innovation
adoptIon) of members of a social system as predicted
by personal characteristics of members the communications or influence flows as well as ;ocial or cultural
norms within the social system (Rogers and Shoemaker 1971: 72-73 ). Only a few studies, regardless of
research context, have focussed on the attributes of
innovations, as perceived by potential adopters. The
relevant studies which exist have been successful in
explaining from 49 percent to 87 percent of the variance in the rate of adoption (Rogers and Shoemaker,
.1971: 140-141 ), but not all of these studies actually
Involved th~ perceptions of potential adopters. For
example, Klvhn (1960) used a panel of "dairying
experts" rather than dairying farmers, for his study
of 43 dairying innovations considered for adoption
among 229 Pennsylvania farmers.
It is curious, however, that not one study has apparently gone beyond using the rate of adoption as
the dependent variable to predict instead who would
propag~tlOn

* Lyman E. Ostlund is Associate Professor in the Marketing

Department of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of
Professors Raymond Bauer of Harvard University and Thomas
S. Robertson of the University of Pennsylvania in designing
the first of the two studies. Appreciation is expressed for
research. support from the Faculty Research Fund of the
Columbia Graduate School of Business.
23

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH. Vol. 1 September 1974

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

PREDICTING INNOVATIVENESS BY
PERCEPTIONS OF INNOVATION ATTRIBUTES:
TWO STUDIES

24

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

abIes would be better predictors of innovativeness

(early new product purchase) than the personal characteristic dimensions frequently found in diffusion
studies. If true, the results would argue for more
research attention on the refinement of perceptual
variables and relatively less on personal characteristics
where the research objective centers on the prediction
of adopters and nonadopters.
THE FIRST STUDY
Independent Variables

The Data

The first phase of the study concerned six test (consumer) products not yet on the market. The predictor
variables were related in a laboratory setting to a buying intentions scale.
A quota sample of 605 Boston area housewives was
used. This phase demonstrated that the perceptual
variables were generally better predictors of purchase
intentions than personal characteristic variables (Ostlund, 1969).
As it happened, only one of the six test products was

TABLE 1
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS AND HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS
Variable Name
Personal Characteristics
Venturesomeness
Cosmopolitanism
Social Integration
Privilegedness
Interest Polymorphism
General Self-Confidence in
Problem-Solving
General Self-Confidence in
Psychosocial Matters
Family Income
Respondent Education
Occupational Status of Husband
Respondent Age
Perceived Innovation Attributes
Relative Advantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Trialability
Observability
Perceived Risk

Definition

Expected Relationship
with Innovativeness

Willingness to take risks in buying new products

Degree of orientation beyond a particular social system
Extent of social participation with other members of the community
Perceived financial well-being relative to peers
Variety and extent of one's personal interests

+
+
+
+

Perceived ability to cope with day to day problems

+
+
+
+
+?

Perceived ability to cope with others' opinions of one's decisions

Total family income
Years of formal education
Social occupational status, measured by the Duncan scalea
Degree to which an innovation is perceived as superior to ideas it
supercedes (both economic and noneconomic considerations)
Degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with
existing values, habits, and past experiences of the potential adopter
Degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use
Degree to which an innovation is perceived as available for trial on
a limited basis, without a large commitment
Degree to which results of an innovation will be apparent and
possible to communicate to others
Degree to which risks are perceived as associated with the innovation

+
+
+
+

a Reiss, Albert J., Jr., Otis Dudley Duncan, Paul K. Hatt, and Cecil C. North, Occupations and Social Status, New York: The
Free Press, 1961, Appendix.

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

The Rogers set of perceived innovation attributes

were operationalized in a separate pretest. These attributes will be referred to by the labels from Rogers
and Shoemaker (1971: 137): relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability and trial ability.
An additional perceptual variable was added, as
conceptualized by Bauer (1960)-perceived risk. Its
operational measurement was based upon the investigations of Arndt (1968), Bauer and Wortzel (1966)
Cox and Rich (1964) and Cunningham (1964) where
it was found to relate negatively with new product
purchase or innovative behavior.
In addition to perceptual variables a set of personal
characteristic variables was included in the study:

venturesomeness, cosmopolitanism, social integration,

social mobility, privilegedness, interest polymorphism,
general self-confidence ( self-esteem) in problem-solving and in psychosocial matters, family income, respondent education, social status of the husband's
occupation, and respondent age. Most of these variables
have appeared often in diffusion literature as predictors
of innovativeness, thus no review of their prior use will
be made. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971: 185-191; 352376) summarize the past research. A discussion of each
variable has been presented earlier ( Ostlund, 1969) .
Table 1 gives the definitions and hypothesized relationships with innovativeness for this study.

25

PERCEIVED INNOVATION ATTRIBUTES AS PREDICTORS OF INNOVATIVENESS

mary research interest is the largest subgroup within

the sample. The proportional chance criterion, C pro.,
is most relevant where correct classification is sought
for all subgroups within the sample. (e.g. buyers and
nonbuyers). Under these circumstances, for a twosubgroup test, a discriminant function has predictive
value to the degree correct classification exceeds:

Cpro. = a2

where a is the proportion of the sample belonging to

one of the two subgroups.
The classification matrices for the four discriminant
functions were given elsewhere (Ostlund, 1972). To
conserve space, only the significance criteria of C mnx.,
and C pro ., together with the classification results in
terms of the proportion of buyers correctly classified
and proportion of the total validation sample correctly
classified for each discriminant function will be reported here (Table 2).
Using the unaided recall measure of purchase, and
all predictor variables, 65 percent of buyers were
correctly classified as buyers by the first discriminant
function. This exceeds the C pro . criterion and nearly
equals the less relevant C max . criterion. The correct
classification for 65 percent of buyers suggests that the
discriminant function was modestly successful. What
happens when only the perceived innovation attribute
variables are used to predict purchase (function #2)?
Interestingly, only a one percent decrease occurred in
the proportion of the total validation sample correctly
TABLE 2
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND CLASSIFICATION
RESULTS FOR FOUR MULTIPLE
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS
Study #1
Function
#1
Unaided
Recall
All
Predictors

Results

Four discriminant functions were derived: (1) unaided recall of purchase, using all predictor variables;
(2) unaided recall of purchase using only perceptual
variables as predictors; (3) aided recall of purchase
using all predictor variables; and (4) aided recall of
purchase using only perceptual variables as predictors.
All four functions were statistically significant (Mahalanobis D2). Two other criteria, C max., and C pro., have
been suggested by Morrison (1969) for use in evaluating the predictive value of multiple discriminant functions. C mnx ., the maximum chance criterion, refers to
the proportion of the sample which would be correctly
classified by merely classifying the entire sample according to the largest subgroup (buyers or nonbuyers).
This criterion is relevant only when the group of pri-

+ {l-a)2

#4
#2
Aided
Unaided
#3
RecalJ
Aided
Recall
Perceptual
Recall
Perceptual
All
Variables
Variables
Predictors
Only
Only

Criteria:
Cmnx .
C pro .

68%
57%

68%
57%

60%
52%

60%
52%

Classification
Results:
Proportion of
buyers correctly
classified

65 %

63%

74%

72%

Proportion of
total validation
sample correctly
classified

80%

n=260

79%

260

69%

260

68%

260

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

finally introduced nationally. The product, a self-layering dessert mix, was introduced into the test a~ea
(Boston) about one year after the laboratory study
was conducted. The identity and telephone numbers of
each respondent from the laboratory study had been
preserved in anticipation that one or more of the six
products would eventually be marketed. After the selflayering dessert mix had been on sale for two months,
telephone interviews were attempted. Because of relocations, changes to unlisted numbers and other obstacles, only 360 of the original 605 respondents were
reached. For control purposes, a random sample of
200 housewives was also interviewed by telephone using
the same questionnaire. No significant difference was
found between the mean purchase incidence score of
the control sample and that for the 360 respondents
of the test sample. This suggested that involvement
with the original laboratory test had not itself stimulated purchase of the dessert product.
The telephone questionnaire involved an ordered
series of questions concerning unaided and aided recall
of purchase attitudes and future purchase intentions
toward the product. Both unaided and aided recall of
purchase were sought from respondents so as to assess
the degree of yea-saying from only the aided recall of
purchase measure. These same questions were asked
for two other recent new products so as to disguise
the study's objective from respondents.
Data from the laboratory study were combined with
the telephone interviews in order to relate the predictor
variables to unaided and aided recall of purchase using
multiple discriminant analysis. The 360 respondent
sample was divided randomly into two groups of 100
and 260 respondents. The first subs ample was used
to derive the discriminant function and the second subsample was used to evaluate its effectiveness in correctly classifying respondents as to buyers and nonbuyers. Additional details of the design are given
elsewhere (Ostlund, 1972).

26

when examining the predictor variables individually

only venturesomeness related significantly (p < .05)

with innovativeness for both unaided and aided recall
data. Problem solving general self-confidence was
statistically significant (p < .05) in the aided recall
function and family income in the unaided recall function. Still, the absence of these three variables was
scarcely missed in functions 2 and 4.
The ranked order of importance among perceived
innovation attributes is given in Table 3 for both the
unaided and aided functions. As would be expected,
there is considerable consistency in the orderings from
the two measures. Relative advantage and compatibility
reverse position as first and second in the rankings. Similarly, complexity and observability exchange orders.
Clearly, however, the perceived innovation attributes
are far from equally important. As one might expect,
trial ability for such an inexpensive product is of no
importance as a predictor. When moving from unaided
to aided recall, the greatly increased size of the stan-

TABLE 3
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PERCEIVED
INNOVATION ATTRIBUTES IN THE
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS
Study #1
Unaided Recall

Variable
Name
Relative
Advantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Perceived risk
Observability
Trialability

Aided Recall

Standardized
Standardized Ranking DiscrimiDiscriminant
of
nant
Function
Impor- Function
Coefficient
tance Coefficient
23.46
22.32
-14.72
-12.74
1.20
.14

1
2
3
4
5
6

20.10
50.63
- 6.00
-12.60
14.21
1.60

Ranking
of
Importance
2
1
5
4
3
6

dardized discriminant function coefficient for compatibility is difficult to comprehend.

In any case it was concluded from this study that
for the test product:
( 1) Perceived innovation attributes are strong predictors of new product purchase.
(2) Personal characteristics of the potential buyer
have little to offer as predictors of new product
purchase.
Given these conclusions, a second study was planned
with the objective of improving upon the percent of
correctly classified new product buyers. As a preliminary step, extensive factor analysis was conducted at
both the item level (individual questions) and the
dimension level (Ostlund, 1973). It was concluded
that:
( 1) Some of the personal characteristic variables
were highly redundant, at least so far as low
cost consumer products are concerned. Adequate assessment of such variables could be
accomplished with a severely reduced item set.
(2) Given the importance of the perceived innovation attributes, particularly relative advantage
and compatibility, greater specificity should be
attempted so that respondents could provide
greater content on subvariables contained within
the two perceived innovation attribute dimensions.
THE SECOND STUDY
Independent Variables

Even though the personal characteristic variables

had been of little predictive value in the first study, it
was decided that an abridged set, based upon the factor

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

classified. One additional buyer and one additional nonbuyer were misclassified. Similar results were obtained
using the aided recall measure of purchase. Using all
of the predictor variables produced 74 percent correct
classification of buyers, considerably in excess of both
discriminant function criteria (function #3). The proportion of nonbuyers correctly classified dropped, such
that the proportion of the total validation sample correctly classified became 69 percent. Using only the
perceptual variables resulted in merely a two percent
drop in the proportion of buyers correctly classified
from aided recall data (function #4). Once again,
both Cpro. and Cmax . are easily exceeded.
The greater effectiveness of the discriminant functions on aided recall data, relative to that on unaided
recall data is thought to have resulted from two sources.
The first source is that of yea-saying which can result
from aided recall measures. A second explanation is
in order, however. According to the telephone interviewers, respondents tended to give the family brand
name ("Jello") instead of the exact brand name
("1,2,3") when responding to the unaided recall
question, and later corrected themselves after the
aided recall question was asked. This point of confusion had not been anticipated. In the author's opinion,
the "true" effectiveness of the unaided discriminant
function should be regarded as relatively close to that
of the aided recall function. In any case, the classification results from aided recall differed by only about
ten percent from those using unaided recall, which
does not suggest a major problem with yea-saying.
What about the relative importance of the predictor
variables? It should be clear from Table 2 that the
personal characteristic variables were unimportant predictors. That is, in removing the personal characteristic
variables from the multiple discriminant functions, the
reductions in classification acuracy are minor. In fact,

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

27

PERCEIVED INNOVATION ATIRIBUTES AS PREDICTORS OF INNOVATIVENESS

analysis work, would be included. The variables selected

were:
1. Socioeconomic status: an index of family income and the social status of the husband's occupational status.
2. Social Mobility-a single self-perception question.
3. Venturesomeness-a single self-perception question.
4. General Self-Confidence in Problem-Solvingthree self-perception questions.
5. Respondent age.

Relative advantage
1. regarding time savings

2. regarding effort savings

3. regarding monetary value

Compatibility
1. regarding self-concept

2. regarding family members

3. regarding existing habits

This expansion was considered appropriate for consumer products but not necessarily beyond that class.
The Data

The product selected for study was a brand of oven

roasting bag made of a special nylon-type material
which can sustain high temperatures. The meat to be
roasted is placed inside the bag on a roasting pan
within the oven. Benefits claimed by the manufacturer
from using such bags include self-basting of the meat,
reduced roasting time, less shrinkage of the meat, and
no oven mess from spattering juices. Several similar
brands of various forms and compositions have been
introduced into the market place since this test was
conducted. The product in question was the first of its
type sold in the test area and was at the time of the
study a new concept in food preparation for housewives.
The data were gathered by means of a representative housewife panel in the test area. Six months before
the product was introduced into the market a sample
of 300 respondents was selected from the on-going
panel to view a series of television commercials on
new products. The sequence of the commercials was
rotated so as to eliminate any order bias. Some of the
commercials concerned existing new products, others
concerned products still at some stage of pre-market
development. One such commercial concerned the oven
bags which gave a demonstration of their appropriate
use. For each of the featured products, the housewife
completed a perceived innovation attribute question-

Results

Essentially the same analysis design was applied to

the second study as had been followed in the first study.
Anyone purchase within the first three months of the
product's availability in supermarkets was sufficient to
designate the respondent an "innovator." All later
buyers and nonbuyers were labelled "non-innovators."
Data from 100 of the 300 member sample were used
to generate the multiple discriminant function which
was validated on data from the remaining 200 members of the same sample.
Using all predictor variables 79 percent of innovators
and 83 percent of the total validating sample were correctly classified (Table 4). The function thus was somewhat stronger than either function 1 (unaided recall)
or function 3 (aided recall) reported in the first study
(Table 2). This is true even though the study was
based upon a somewhat smaller sample. Most encouraging was the function's performance in classifying
innovators.
As with the first study, the personal characteristic
TABLE 4
MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT CLASSIFICATION TABLE
USING ALL PREDICTOR VARIABLES
Study #2

Innovators
Actual
Non-Innovators

As Classified By Predictors
NonTotal
Innovators Innovators
52
11
41

24
65

124

ill

Proportion of Innovators Correctly Classified:

Proportion of Total Sample Correctly Classified:
Cmax .
C pro .

= 74%
= 62%

148
200

79%
83%

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

Cosmopolitanism, interest polymorphism, privilegedness, social integration, general self-confidence in psychosocial matters and respondent education were
dropped. This reduced variable set was still considered
generous.
None of the perceived innovation attribute variables
was eliminated. Instead, relative advantage and compatibility were expanded accordingly:

naire. At the conclusion she completed the personal

characteristic questionnaire.
Once the roasting bag product was introduced into
the market area covered by the panel, recorded purchases of the product began to appear on panel diaries.
Such purchases were then matched up to the responses
on the above questionnaires. Purchase data from a
second sample of 200 housewives drawn from the
same panel were also obtained to provide a control
group measure. This second sample was not exposed
to the television commercials. Consequently it was
possible to compare the proportion of buyers in the
exposed sample to the proportion of buyers in the
control sample. No statistically significant difference
was noted. Therefore, it was concluded that the purchase incidence of the exposed sample had not been
biased by earlier exposure to the commercial.

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

28

CONCLUSIONS
The evidence from two studies of new consumer
packaged goods suggests that the perceptions of innovations by potential adopters can be very effective
predictors of innovativeness, more so than personal
characteristic variables. More work must be devoted
to the refinement and elaboration of perceived innovation attribute dimensions, however. Secondly, replication among differing types of potential adopters and
products is needed.
Diffusion researchers, particularly rural sociologists,
are urged to make the added effort to incorporate such
variables, where appropriate, in their studies, and devote relatively less effort to studying personal characTABLE 5
MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT CLASSIFICATION TABLE
USING ONLY THE PERCEIVED INNOVATION
ATTRIBUTE VARIABLES
Study #2

As Classified By Predictors
NonInnovators Innovators
Total
Innovators
Actual
Non-Innovators

40

12

52

31

117
129

148
200

71

Proportion of Innovators Correct! y Classified:

Proportion of the Total Sample Correctly Classified:
Cmnx . = 74%
C pro . = 62%

77 %
79%

TABLE 6
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PERCEIVED
INNOVATION ATTRIBUTES IN THE
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION
Study #2

Variable Name

Standardized
Discriminant
Function
Coefficient

Relative Advantage
a) time savings
b) effort savings
c) Monetary value

21.7
27.8
6.4

1
5

Compatibility
a) self-concept
b) family members
c) existing habits

5.6
2.2
4.7

6
9
7

-7.9
-9.2
3.4
1.7

4
3
8

Complexity
Perceived risk
Observability
Trialability

Ranking
of
Importance
2

10

teristics of potential adopters as independent variables.

The studies reported here, plus research on perceptual
mapping within marketing, support this recommendation. As contrasted to the work in rural sociology
which related perceived innovation attribute dimensions to rate of adoption, the two studies reported here
aim at discriminating between "buyers" and "nonbuyers" or "innovators" and "non-innovators." That
is, the analysis here is at the disaggregative level rather
than at an aggregative level. According to Rogers and
Shoemaker (1971: 72-73), 3,974 of 6,811 studies
collected by the Michigan State University Diffusion
Documents Center have focussed on the "innovativeness of members of a social system" as. predicted by
"characteristics of members, system norms and other
system variables, plus communication channel usage."
By contrast only 82 of the 6,811 studies have in any
way dealt with perceived innovation attributes. Apparently all 82 studies related such perceived innovation
attributes to the rate of adoption for the innovations.
Clearly, therefore diffusion researchers have devoted
disproportional effort on only one type of research.
Their knowledge of how perceived innovation attributes
affect the rate of adoption is, by comparison, minimal.
There is a near void of any knoweldge of how perceived innovation attributes relate to innovativeness,
or the adoption decision process. In effect, diffusion
researchers have proceeded as if all innovations are
interchangeable, which in no way agrees with common
sense. Diffusion researchers on the whole have been
rather successful in standardizing their concepts and
measures. The same effort applied to perceptual variables could go far in improving the predictive quality
of any adoption rate model (at the aggregative level)
or any adoption decision model (at the disaggregative
level) .

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

variables were of little importance. Only venturesomeness and socioeconomic status bore any relationship
(positive) to innovativeness. The levels of significance
were .05 and .10 respectively. For this reason, it is
not surprising that, as before, little change resulted in
the classification matrix by dropping the personal characteristic variables (Table 5). One additional innovator
was misclassified and, less importantly, seven additional
non-innovators were misclassified. In any case, the
function's performance regarding innovators is improved relative to functions 2 and 4 in the first study
(Table 2).
The relative importance of perceived innovation attributes in the discriminant function is given in Table
6. Separate coefficients are given for the components
of relative advantage and compatibility. Effort savings,
time savings and perceived risk take the first three
positions of importance followed by complexity and
monetary value. The importance of compatibility when
split into three components is not so prominent as was
true in the first study (Table 3). Nonetheless, it is
fair to say that the same general ordering is found as
was true in the first study.

PERCEIVED INNOVATION ATTRIBUTES AS PREDICTORS OF INNOVATIVENESS

REFERENCES
Arndt, Johan. "Profiling Consumer Innovators," in Johan
Arndt (Ed.), Insights into Consumer Behavior, Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1968, 71-83.
Bauer, Raymond A. "Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking,"
Proceedings of the Educators' Conference, American
Marketing Association, 1960, 389-398.
Bauer, Raymond A. and Lawrence H. Wortzel. "Doctor's
Choice, The Physician and His Sources of Information About Drugs," Journal of Marketing Research,
3 (February 1966), 40-47.
Cox, Donald F. and Stuart U. Rich. "Perceived Risk and
Consumer Decision Making-The Case of Telephone
Shopping," Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (Nov.
1964), 32-39.
Cunningham, S. M. "Perceived Risk as a Factor in ProductOriented Word-of-Mouth Behavior: A First Step,"
Proceedings Educators' Conference, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1964, 229-238.

Green, Paul E. and Frank J. Carmone. Multidimensional

Scaling and Related Techniques in Marketing Analysis.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1970.
Johnson, Richard M. "Market Segmentation: A Strategic
Management Tool," Journal of Marketing Research,
8 (February 1971), 13-18.
Kivlin, J. E. "Characteristics of Farm Practices Associated
with Rate of Adoption." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University,
1960.
Lehmann, Donald R. "Television Show Preference: Application of a Choice Model," Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (February 1971), 47-55.
Morrison, Donald G. "On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 6
(May 1969), 156-163.
Neidell, Lester A. "The Use of Nonparametric Multidimensional Scaling in Marketing Analysis," Journal
of Marketing, 33 (October 1969), 37-43.
Ostlund, Lyman E. "The Role of Product Perceptions in
Innovative Behavior," in P. R. McDonald (Ed.), Marketing Involvement in Society and the Economy, Proceedings of the 1969 Fall Conference, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, 259-266.
- - - - . "Identifying Early Buyers," Journal of Advertising Research, 12 (April 1972), 25-30.
- - - - . "Factor Analysis Applied to Predictors of Innovative Behavior," Decision Sciences, (January
1973),92-108.
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.
Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. Communication of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1971.
Steffire, Volney J. "Some Applications of Multidimensional
Scaling to Social Science Problems," the revised version of a paper presented at the Mathematical Social
Science Board Advanced Research Seminar on Scaling and Measurement, Balboa Bay Club, June 13-16,
1969.

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2016

While the need for such research seems clear, it

must be acknowledged that the methodological difficulties are serious. Perceptions gathered after adoption
are likely to be contaminated by whatever post decision dissonance may exist. To gather perceptions before
adoption is usually difficult unless the researcher has
prior knowledge that the innovation will soon appear
or can actually control its initial appearance within
the test area. Even given that measure of advanced
warning or control, prior questioning of potential
adopters could stimulate adoption of the innovation.
This is far from likely on costly or otherwise difficult
to adopt innovations, but clearly a possible problem
on inexpensive, easily adopted innovations. Despite
the difficulties, it is hoped that appropriate research
designs will emerge in both marketing and rural sociology. The two fields clearly can benefit from the
exchange.

29