Consumer Resistance To, and Acceptance Of, Innovations

ABSTRACT - This paper presents a new framework for thinking about consumer decision making with respect to innovations. Based on research in the psychology of action, a comprehensive model for consumer resistance to, and acceptance of, innovations is presented, that is divided into two general processes : goal setting and goal striving. The goal setting process is shown to consist of five stages: initial response to innovations->perceptual and evaluative processes for goal setting->emotional acceptance and resistance->coping responses>adoption decision. Four different decisions are considered: the decision to try or adopt, the decision to overcome resistance, the decision to resist, and indecision. Likewise, the goal striving process is shown to consist of five stages: appraisal and choice of means for goal striving->action planning->initiation of goal pursuit->control of goal pursuit->actual adoption or not. The various decision making procedures are considered heuristics that represent loosely coupled stages of cognitive, emotional, and volitional processes.


Richard P. Bagozzi and Kyu-Hyun Lee (1999) ,"Consumer Resistance To, and Acceptance Of, Innovations", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, eds. Eric J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 218-225.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, 1999      Pages 218-225


Richard P. Bagozzi, University of Michigan

Kyu-Hyun Lee, Hannam University


This paper presents a new framework for thinking about consumer decision making with respect to innovations. Based on research in the psychology of action, a comprehensive model for consumer resistance to, and acceptance of, innovations is presented, that is divided into two general processes : goal setting and goal striving. The goal setting process is shown to consist of five stages: initial response to innovations->perceptual and evaluative processes for goal setting->emotional acceptance and resistance->coping responses>adoption decision. Four different decisions are considered: the decision to try or adopt, the decision to overcome resistance, the decision to resist, and indecision. Likewise, the goal striving process is shown to consist of five stages: appraisal and choice of means for goal striving->action planning->initiation of goal pursuit->control of goal pursuit->actual adoption or not. The various decision making procedures are considered heuristics that represent loosely coupled stages of cognitive, emotional, and volitional processes.


Most research into the adoption of innovations has focused upon the characteristics of innovations or adopters, or interpersonal factors or the influence of social or commercial stimuli (e.g., Robertson, 1971; Rogers, 1995). Very little research has addressed the decision processes consumers engage in with respect to adoption, and we lack a general framework for thinking about consumer information processing with regard to innovations.

Gatignon and Robertson (1991) proposed a set of criteria that can serve as a useful beginning in the specification of a model of information processing. They identified two classes of factors that are central to information processing: factors motivating information search and factors inhibiting information search. The former includes information value, relief of decision anxiety, and social definition for consumption; the latter encompasses risks of accepting poor information and taking subordinate position.

In this paper, we build upon Gatignon and Robertson’s (1991) ideas and draw upon recent research in the psychology of action to propose a comprehensive model where consumer resistance to, and acceptance of, innovations are explained. To this end, we consider multiple areas where resistance to innovations occurs throughout the adoption process. Resistance to innovations is a special case of general resistance to change. Very little attention has been paid to the role of resistance in the adoption process. We particularly focus on that part of the theory of action concerned with goals. Goals are important to study because they summarize a consumer’s desires and become the basis for planning, action initiation, action control, and goal achievement.

We propose that consumer decision processes about innovations can be conceived as an instance of purposive behavior, where a consumer makes decisions about goals related to his or her subjective well-being (e.g., Emmons, 1996). By goals, we mean "internal representations of desired states, where states are broadly construed as outcomes, events, or processes" (Austin and Vancouver, 1996, p. 338). Goals are represented by consumers in cognitive schemas of things they want to achieve or experience or things they want to happen to them. For example, a consumer can set a goal to buy a new phone system with video capabilities before the end of this year. The consumer’s cognitive schema in this case might consist of such sub-objectives as maintaining contact with loved ones, being able to better detect nonverbal cues, making the communication process more personable, and providing enough time to both learn about different brands and permit enough competitors to bring their products to market. These ideas and others become organized in a mental model that represents the consumer’s knowledge of video phones and their meaning for the consumer. One’s cognitive schema and overall goal serve important self-regulatory functions in the adoption process, which we develop below.

For purposes of discussion, we divide the process of consumer adoption into two broad phases: goal setting and goal striving (e.g., Heckhausen and Gollwitzer, 1987). Goal setting comprises various appraisal and related information processing activities directed at the innovation and ends with a decision to adopt or not. Goal striving consists of volitional processes transforming goals into goal attainment (e.g., planning and implementation activities) and ends with actual adoption or not. We turn now to an explication of these two phases of consumer adoption.


Goal setting with regard to adoption decisions typically involves a number of activities that can be loosely arranged in a series of five stages (see Figure 1). In stage 1, a consumer is confronted with an external or internal change in his or her situation. The most important external impetus arises from communication of an innovation provided by advertising, personal selling, publicity, or word of mouth communication from family, friends, or opinion leaders. It is also possible for a consumer to simply come across an innovation through unplanned activities such as exploratory shopping or while shopping for other products. The nature and characteristics of an innovation contribute to its desirability. By nature of an innovation, we refer one of the three forms it may take (Lee, 1994). An innovation might consist of improvements to existing attributes. An innovation might introduce new attributes to an existing product or service. Or an innovation might be an entirely new product or service to the market. Changes in existing products or services have been termed continuous innovations, while introductions of entirely new products or services have been called discontinuous innovations. By characteristics of an innovation, we refer to relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity (Rogers, 1995). To the innovation characteristics proposed by Rogers(1995), Gatignon and Robertson(1991) added the cost of the innovation (i.e., purchase and switching costs), uncertainty (e.g., standardization, expected length of life cycle), and social relevance.

In addition to the impact of innovation characteristics, marketing programs and interpersonal communication affect responses to the communication of an innovation, as do cultural nuances. Marketing programs under competitive intensity influence choice of innovations (Gatignon and Roberton, 1993). Social ties and word-of-mouth networks influence many consumers (Brown and Reingen, 1987). Some innovators tend to make decisions independent of the decisions of others (Midgley and Dowling, 1993). And market mavens, as diffusers of marketplace information, can influence consumers (Feick and Price, 1987). In this paper, we will not consider the processes that enhance or inhibit the reception of communications of innovations. We also do not directly address individual difference variables, such as personality, cognitive style, or temperament, which can moderate the relationships shown in Figure 1. Rather, we focus upon the information processing steps that take place once a communication of an innovation occurs and one becomes exposed to it, or once a consumer discovers an innovation (or as described below, once a consumer seeks-out innovations).

Besides external communication of innovations, goal setting is sometimes initiated by an internal recognition of a problem or need (see Figure 1). Here the consumer seeks to find an innovation in the marketplace or else attempts to persuade a seller to make the innovation to suit the consumer (e.g., von Hippel, 1982,1988). Parallel to exposure to communication of an innovation, the impact of recognition of a need can be influenced by innovation characteristics, marketing programs, interpersonal relationships through social ties and word-of-mouth networks, and culture.

Whether stimulated externally or internally, the initial response of a consumer is likely to be one of either resistance or openness to communication of an innovation or to a felt internal need. Consider first initial resistance. Sometimes the reaction of a consumer to the idea of an innovation is resisted actively. For example,an innovation may prompt a response of rejection, protest, or even active boycotting. Although active resistance can occur after careful deliberation, we note that it also can emerge more or less spontaneously without prior decision making with respect to an innovation, such as occurs when one automatically accepts the policy of a group to which one belongs. Thus, for example, commitment to religious principles prompts some to resist certain medical practices, irrespective of their technical merits, or membership in a labor union brings pressure to resist innovations manufactured by nonunion labor or made in foreign countries where human rights are violated. In this case, group membership and identity are related to resistance to and acceptance of innovations. This is an area where social identity theory can be applied fruitfully (e.g., Tajfel and Turner, 1985, Turner, 1991).

Initial resistance occurs passively as well. One way this happens is as a consequence of habit. By using some products repeatedly over a long period of time, a consumer forms habits. This leads to resistance to innovations. Sheth (1981) terms this "the single most powerful determinant in generating resistance" and notes that "perceptual and cognitive mechanisms are likely to be tuned in to preserve the habit because the typical human tendency is to strive for consistency and status quo rather than to continuously search for, and embrace new behaviors" (p. 275, see also Zaltman and Wallendorf, 1983). What are the perceptual and cognitive mechanisms behind such passive resistance to innovations? One of these may be attitude strength toward the object of habit, which prevents one from being receptive to an innovation. Eagly and Chaiken (1995) point out that attitudes will be strong to the extent that they are linked to "prior evaluative experience and with other more abstract attitudes" (p. 248). Likewise, Petty, Haugtvedt, and Smith (1995) argue that attitudes will be strong to the degree that they are formed as a result of effortful processing of information of relevance and the person has a high need for cognition. Strong attitudes toward existing objects contribute to resistance to change and may prevent consumers from being open to innovations. In this case, further processing of information about a innovation may require that one be open to change, or even change one’s attitudes toward the habitual target. It means breaking the resistance to attitude change. Additional insights on consumer resistance in early stages of information processing can be found in Ram (1987) and Ram and Sheth (1989).

Once a consumer is open to considering an innovation, the second stage in the information processing model shown in Figure 1, evaluation of the innovation, takes place. Typically, an evaluation will be made of the attributes or characteristics of the innovation plus consequences of adoption. If the innovation replaces an existing object or practice, is one of a number of alternative innovations, or involves opportunity costs with respect to other purchases, comparisons may also be made to available options for action. The outcome of the evaluation phase is a perception that the innovation is an opportunity or a threat, or possibly both opportunity and threat.

It is possible that, once an innovation is perceived as an opportunity on the basis of an evaluation of its merits and comparison to alternative courses of action, the consumer will jump to the final stage and decide to adopt it (stage 5 in Figure 1). This happens with impulsive purchases, for instance. Alternatively, it is possible that the perception of an innovation as a threat will lead directly to a decision not to adopt it. This might be the reaction of a consumer who has a tendency or cognitive orientation to be risk averse and not balance perceived risk with possible gain (e.g., Dowling, 1986, Dowling and Staelin, 1994, Puto, Patten, and King, 1985). We suspect that, depending on the innovation, neither the impulsive acceptance nor the premature capitulation to fear about risk of an innovation will characterize the majority of decisions. Rather, consumers will most often continue information processing until the perceptions f opportunity and/or threat are subjectively addressed to satisfaction (hence, stages 3 and 4 in Figure 1 will be experienced as the rule rather than the exception).

Stage 3 in the information processing model of Figure 1 captures further elaboration of one’s feelings and thoughts in this regard, wherein three sub-processes are critical. Positive and negative emotions occur in response to perceived opportunity and threat, respectively. Emotions are distinctive mental states that emerge after one makes appraisals of an innovation. Appraisals are comparisons one makes between an actual and desired state and typically occur automatically. As a mental state, an emotion consists of a conscious awareness that one has a feeling plus a felt tendency to act on the emotion. At the same time, emotions are usually accompanied by distinctive physiological changes (e.g., changes in the autonomic nervous system) and bodily movements (e.g., facial expressions).

Opportunities and threats lead to discrete positive and negative emotions, respectively, depending on the unique combination of innovation attributes/consequences and one’s appraisals of these. Roseman and his colleagues(1990) proposed that the particular positive or negative emotion(s) resulting from an appraisal will be a function of the interaction of five factors:

"(a) motivational state: whether an individuals’ motive in a given situation is aversive (a punishment that he or she seeks to avoid) or appetitive (a reward that he or she seeks to attain), (b) situational state: whether the motivational state (the punishment or reward) is present or absent..., (c) probability: whether the occurrence of an outcome is uncertain or certain, (d) legitimacy: whether a negative outcome is deserved or a positive outcome is deserved in the situation, and (e) agency: whether an outcome is caused by impersonal circumstance, some other person, or the self" (Roseman, Spindel, and Jose, 1990, p. 899).

Emotional acceptance of innovations comes from positive emotions such as joy, pride, hope, love or liking. Joy results when a consumer receives a reward perceived to be caused by innovations, and pride happens when one perceives that oneself produced his or her achievement of a reward or avoided costs. Hope occurs when, given an uncertain situation, one judges he or she will probably get a reward or not incur cost, and love or liking results when another consumer caused one to get something he or she desired or to not get something he or she did not desire. These positive emotions contribute to emotional acceptance of innovations, ceteris paribus.



Similarly, emotional resistance to innovations comes from negative emotions such as anger, fear, sadness and disgust, guilt, shame, contempt, and envy and jealousy. Anger occurs when another consumer causes one to fail to achieve an expected reward. Fear happens when either a danger is expected or possible failure to receive a reward is anticipated. Disappointment results after external events prevent the occurrence of a desired reward. Disgust ensues when external circumstances thwart one’s gustatory goals. Guilt results when one does something he or she regards as morally wrong ad injurious to another person or persons. Shame happens when one perceives that another person whose opinion is valued evaluates one as unworthy or incompetent, as a result of violation of some standard. Contempt arises when one feels disgust or hatred toward another person, because the person has blocked one’s goals or injured one in some way, and envy and jealousy occur when one perceives another has or threatens to take away what he or she considers one’s own.

The way that positive and negative emotions function in decision making processes with respect to innovations are as counterfactual assessments of the consequences of adoption or not. In this regard, anticipatory emotions perform a key role in decision making (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Pieters, 1998). Here, a decision-maker must be capable of "imagining the possible" (i.e., identifying and evaluating the consequences occurring if one were to adopt an innovation and to not adopt an innovation). The thought processes entail a type of counterfactual thinking. The decision-maker generates alternative consequences to imagined goal congruence and goal incongruence, should he or she adopt an innovation and not adopt an innovation. The perceived consequences are appraised, and anticipatory emotional responses are, in turn, generated. By imagining what would happen if one succeeded and what would happen if one failed to achieve a valued goal as a result of adoption, a decision-maker elaborates upon the goal situation and sets the stage for emotional appraisals. The specific emotions generated will depend on the combination of conditions noted above (Roseman et al., 1990).

As shown under the third stage in Figure 1, a number of other cognitive processes influence both emotional responses and subsequent decision making. An especially important variable in this regard is self-efficacy which Bandura(1991) emphasized. In our model, self-efficacy can be defined as the confidence one has that he or she can do what it takes to adopt an innovation. Across a wide range of behaviors, self-efficacy has been shown to influence the willingness to act as well as actual action initiation. Likewise, outcome expectancies are important variables in decision making. Outcome expectancies refer to likelihood judgments that, if one acts, one’s goals will be achieved. Self-efficacy and outcome expectancies made during goal setting activities are typically preliminary assessments of one’s personal control over the adoption decision process and its outcomes. Later we will discuss how these processes become more detailed and instrumental in the choice of means for pursuing a goal in the second phase of decision making: goal striving processes. The last cognitive activities shown in stage 3 in Figure 1 are attribution processes. Attribution processes directly enter appraisals of opportunity and threat to shape the particular discrete emotional response(s) a consumer has. To take but one example, consider the differences between frustration, anger, and regret. A negative outcome anticipated from the possible adoption of an innovation will be perceived as frustration, anger, or regret, depending, respectively, on whether external circumstances, another person, or the self is believed responsible for the negative outcome.

Stage 4, coping responses, encompasses information integration of the feelings and cognitive responses generated in stage 3 and felt action tendencies associated with these. Information integration is done automatically or purposively whereby a decision maker balances subjective pleasure and pain anticipated from adoption or not. Lazarus (1991) discusses two forms of coping people use to manage their emotional responses. Under problem-focused coping, people use action-centered responses to ameliorate stress or distress that arises from decision making. This might mean, for example, deciding to give up dependence on an old innovation, accepting that a problem exists with an ongoing mode of behavior and recognizing that an innovation provides one solution, or persuading family members that the best solution for achieving financial goals is the adoption of a new investment plan offered by company X.

Te other form of coping is termed emotion-focused coping. Lazarus (1991) notes that under emotion-focused coping people use thinking or cognitive-centered strategies to manage their emotional responses. For example, such classic psychological reactions as avoiding thinking about painful topics, denial that a problem exists, or distancing oneself from the thought of punishing consequences are sometimes used by decision makers to cope with negative emotions. Obviously, if a decision maker used such defenses to respond to intense negative reactions to an innovation, the outcome constitutes a form of resistance. Of course, coping responses might just as often consist of efforts to sustain positive emotions or fulfill hoped for consequences of adoption and thus serve to facilitate or promote adoption decisions.

We can think of coping activities as attempts to manage both the quality and intensity of on-going and anticipated emotions in relation to decision making about innovations. Recently, researchers have developed a theory about how each major discrete emotion (i.e., anger, sadness, fear, hope, joy, et cetera) leads to specific coping decisions and intentions (e.g., Bagozzi, 1992; Laux and Weber, 1990). For instance, emotional reactions of anger and anxiety to an innovation provoke different coping decisions. Anger results from an appraisal that another person is blocking one’s goals. The anticipated harm, loss, or threat and attribution of blame to another leads to the experience of anger, which is marked further by feelings of frustration and awareness of tension or stress of a particular kind. To cope with feelings of anger, one common response is to decide to attack the source of frustration, either verbally (e.g., bad mouthing) or physically (e.g., decide to hurt a company economically by purposively buying a competitor’s product). Anxiety, in contrast, results from an appraisal that external circumstances endanger one’s identity or existence and one does not know exactly what is going to happen nor when. The anticipated threat leads to feelings of uneasiness, perhaps even panic, depending on the magnitude of the threat, and a sense of urgency or crisis. To cope with feelings of anxiety, ego-defenses are often used, such as denial, magical solutions, and superstitions (Lazarus, 1991). However, as Lazarus notes anxiety is perhaps the one emotion for which people are relatively helpless when it comes to coping.

A type of coping that is automatic, adaptive, and even part of some authors’ definitions of emotion (e.g., Frijda, 1986) is the occurrence of action tendencies. Each emotion can be thought to be connected to one or more action tendencies, which tend to have involuntary characters to them. For example, the action tendency of anger is to attack or lash out at the blameworthy agent, for anxiety the action tendency is avoidance or to flee, and for joy the action tendency is to try to share one’s good fortune with others and in general approach others. We can think of decisions or intentions to adopt an innovation or not to be functions of coping responses and their accompanying action tendencies (Bagozzi, 1992). Indeed, decisions or intentions bring closure to emotions and are a type of coping in their own right.

As shown in Figure 1, four general decisions can be made with respect to an innovation. The consumer can decide to adopt or try the innovation, to resist adoption, or to keep one’s decision open one way or the other (i.e., remain undecided). Adoption and trial are familiar responses and have been studied extensively. Resistance and indecision have received little study by researchers.

Consider first resistance. Sometimes a consumer will decide to resist adoption and feel comfortable with this decision. He or she remains a "hard sell", because adoption is not likely to occur even at a later time, unless stronger persuasive arguments are provided, new incentives are offered, or the consumer reassesses earlier appraisals or concludes a problem is more pressing than originally ascertained. By contrast, a consumer might conclude that resistance is called for, given the outcome of information integration and the balance of positie and negative emotional responses, yet recognize that the resistance is unwarranted, ultimately dysfunctional, or for some other reason needs to be overcome. Perhaps one recognizes that weakness of will has lead one to resist, that one’s resistance violates ethical or moral standards, or that resistance springs from irrational fears. For example, a recent print ad for a new drug designed to help one stop smoking (Nicoderm) shows a father and son facing each other, and the headline highlights the following lament from the father: "I know I should quit (smoking). Don’t tell me why, tell me how". Here the father recognizes that he resists stopping smoking (and implicitly the new product) but pleads for help in finding a way to stop smoking.

Indecision results when information has not been fully integrated, the consumer is locked into ruminations (either because of the complexity of the decision task or as a consequence of a cognitive style plagued by excessive or even obsessive deliberations), or approach/avoidance conflicts cannot be resolved. These type of indecision and others have been shown to contribute to purchase delays (e.g., Greenleaf and Lehman, 1995). Obviously, marketing communication tasks are different for the indecisive consumer than for either the convinced or reluctant resistor.

Although not shown in Figure 1, the following elaboration of decisions can also occur. Accompanying many decisions will be an urge to express that decision and perhaps the reasons behind it to others. Sometimes we simply wish to share our decisions, maybe with the aim of receiving support or confirmation. Likewise, we may feel an urge to praise the innovation, thereby initiating positive word of mouth communication. Resistance to an innovation, in contrast, might lead to negative word of mouth communication. Or those recognizing they should overcome their decision to resist (or those who are undecided) might reach out to others for help or advice. Such action tendencies are special cases of general action readiness found by researchers in the emotion literature (e.g., Frijda et al., 1989).


The adoption process does not end with decision making. As obvious as this might seem, it is important to realize that current models of consumer adoption stop with the decision to adopt or not. That is, actual adoption behaviors are typically predicted by the decision to adopt, along with antecedents to the decision itself and characteristics of the innovation. What has been neglected is consideration of how a decision, once made, is implemented. Figure 2 illustrates important self-regulatory processes in this regard.

We can summarize the implementation processes in five goal-striving stages: appraisal and choice of means for goal striving->action planning->initiation of goal pursuit->control of goal pursuit->actual adoption or not. Let us discuss these processes.

Once a decision has been made, the consumer faces the problem of deciding how to fulfill the decision. For many decisions, the process begins with consideration of alternative means to this end (stage 1 in Figure 2). Three appraisal processes have been identified as especially critical in this stage of the process. The first consists of the self-efficacy or confidence one has that he or she can execute the means in one’s means choice set. The second is the means-outcome expectancy for each possible means (i.e., assessment of the likelihood that the initiation of each mens would lead to actual adoption). The third appraisal is the affect or degree of liking or disliking for each means. The choice of means requires that the information contained in these appraisals be integrated.

To illustrate, imagine that a consumer decides to build a new custom vacation cottage on his or her lake front lot and housing plans have been chosen for a unique design using all synthetic, recycled materials. Three options are to be considered: hiring a builder to do the entire project, managing the project oneself by hiring and supervising various contractors, or building the cottage oneself. The consumer will have different levels of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and affect toward each option. The choice of option will be a function of the integration and evaluation of the three appraisals for the options, where for simplicity we assume the economic cost of each is the same (i.e., the size of the cottage changes across options, but the planned expenditure is constant). In general, the implicit decision rules for organizing self-efficacies, outcome expectancies, and affect toward means have been shown to follow either additive or multiplicative formulae, depending on the level of task difficulty: additive for easy tasks and multiplicative for difficult tasks (e.g., Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998).

After a choice of means has been made, the second stage in goal striving process is action planning (see Figure 2). Following Gollwitzer (1996), we identify four decision points with respect to planning: when, where, how, and how long to act. The sub-plans embedded in the decision points link situational cues to instrumental acts one needs to take to implement an adoption decision. Experimental research in goal-directed behavior shows that the mental representation of the situational cues specified in one’s plan become highly activated, making these cues more easily accessible and facilitative in initiating action at the appropriate time (Gollwitzer and BrandstStter, 1997).

Stage 3 in Figure 2 is the execution of one’s plan through performance of goal-directed behaviors. Here the action implementation intentions formed in the planning stage are realized. That is, the contingent actions specified in planning are activated when the anticipated situational cues emerge. An example of an implementation intention is the following: "I will buy a high definition television when the price drops below $5,000".

Next, in stage 4, given that multiple instrumental acts must be performed over time to achieve one’s goals, various control activities have to be performed (see Figure 2). Four general sub-activities are involved in the monitoring of progress: overcoming any impediments encountered along the way, resisting goal-thwarting temptations that might arise, maintaining one’s motivation and commitment to goal attainment, and re-evaluating one’s goal, means, and alternative goals during pursuit.



Successful choice and implementation of means leads to adoption, trial, or the failure to adopt (see stage 5 in Figure 2). But the processes in goal pursuit do not end here. Any adoption or failure to adopt will be appraised, and the discrepancy between desired and actual outcomes will lead to adoption-outcome emotions. Similar to the discussion of emotions presented under the decision to adopt or not above, we can identify specific adoption-outcome emotions, depending on the combination of motivational state, situational state, probability, legitimacy (power), and agency occurring. These emotions, analogous to satisfaction/dissatisfaction responses studied in the consumer literature, feedback to regulate one’s goal setting and goal striving activities as shown in Figure 2(e.g., Luce, 1998). The integration of this feedback with existing knowledge and values, and in conjunction with learned responses, including habitual processes, serves to regulate repeat purchase behavior.


We conceived of consumer response with respect to innovations as a purposive behavior activity whereby information about an innovation is processed in relation to one’s personal well-being. Purposive behavior was framed through two basic decision activities: goal setting and goal striving. Within both activities, we suggested that attention must be paid to both consumer resistance and consumer acceptance and the ways these are integrated when consumers make choices. Innovations include continuous or discontinuous change, and resistance to change is inevitable even though there is degree of difference between the types of change. The acceptance process can be understood as the manner by which resistance is overcome. Therefore, more research is needed into cognitive and emotional processes underlying resistance and how it can be overcome. Our emphasis was placed as well on cognitive and emotional responses that occur in various forms on and off throughout the goal setting and goal striving processes. This emphasis shows the difference of our model from those due to Nicosia(1966), Howard and Sheth(1969), Bettman (1978), Engel, Blackwell and Miniard(1990), who attempted to develop more comprehensive frameworks and who did not use purposive behavior and goal-setting and goal-pursuit as organizing schemes. Thus, our approach is a middle-range theory (e.g., Merton, 1968, pp.39-72). We hope that the framework presented herein will be useful in identifying heretofore unstudied aspects of decision making and will lead to a program of research leading to better explanation of decision processes in the adoption of innovations.


Austin, James T. and Jeffrey B. Vancouver (1996). "Goal Constructs in Psychology: Structure, Process, and Content," Psychological Bulletin, 120 (3), 338-375.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1992). "The Self-regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior," Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178-204.

Bagozzi, Richard P. and Elizabeth A. Edwards (1998). "Goal-striving and the Implementation of Goal Intentions," unpublished working paper, the University of Michigan.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Hans Baumgartner, and Rik Pieters (1998). "Goal-directed Emotions," Cognition and Emotion, 12, 1-26.

Bandura, Albert (1991). "Social Cognitive Theory of Self-regulation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

Bettman, James R.(1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Brown, J. Johnson and Peter H. Reingen (1987). "Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Beahavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 14, December, 350-362.

Dowling, Grahame R.(1986). "Perceived Risk: The Concept and Its Measurement," Psychology & Marketing, 3, 193-210.

Dowling, Grahame R. and Richard Staelin (1994). " A Model of Perceived Risk and Risk-handling Activity," Journal of Consumer Research, 21, June, 119-134.

Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1995). "Attitude Strength, Attitude Structure, and Resistance to change," in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, (eds.) Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 413-432.

Emmons, R. A. (1996). "Striving and Feeling: Personal Goals and Subjective Well-being," in P.M. Gollwitzer and J.A. Bargh (eds.), The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior, New York: Guilford, 313-337.

Engel. James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Miniard, Consumer Behavior, 6th ed. Chicago: Dryden Press.

Feik, Lawrence F. and Linda L. Price (1987). " The Market Maven: A Diffusor of Marketplace Information," Journal of Marketing, 51 , January, 83-97.

Frijda, Nico H. (1986). The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frijda, Nico H., Peter Kuipers, and Elisabeth ter Schure (1989). "Relations Among Emotion, Appraisal, and Emotional Action Readiness," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212-228.

Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson (1991). "Innovative Decision Processes," in Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson (1993). "The Impact of Risk and Competition on Choice of Innovations," Marketing Letters, 4, 191-204.

Gollwitzer, Peter M. (1996). "Planning and Coordinating Action," in Peter M. Gollwitzer and John A. Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior. New York: Guilford, 283-312.

Gollwitzer, Peter M. and V. BrandstStter (1997). "Implementation Intentions and Effective Goal Pursuit," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186-189.

Greenleaf, Eric A. and Donald R. Lehmann (1995). "Reasons for Substantial Delay in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, September, 186-199.

Heckhausen, H. and P. M. Gollwitzer (1987). "Thought Contents and Cognitive Functioning in Motivational versus Volitional States of Mind," Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101-120.

Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969). The Theory of Consumer Behavior, New York: Wiley.

Laux, L. and H. Weber (1990). "Presentation of Self in Coping with Anger and Anxiety: An Intentional Approach," Anxiety Research, 3, 233-255.

Lazarus, Richard S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, Kyu-Hyun (1994). " The Effect of Expectation and Information on the Speed of the Adoption of Innovations,"(in Korean) Journal of Business, 28, College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 241-265.

Luce, Mary Frances (1998). "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, vol.24, March, 409-433.

Merton, Robert K. (1968). "On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range," In Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, enl. Ed., New York: Free Press, 39-72.

Midgley, David F. and Grahame R. Dowling(1993), "A Longitudinal Study of Product Form Innovation: The Interaction Between Predispositions and Social Messages," Journal of Consumer Research, March, 611-625.

Nicosia, Francesco M. (1966). Consumer Decision Processes: Marketing and Advertising Implications, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Petty, Richard E., Curtis P. Haugtvedt, and Stephen M. Smith (1995). "Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strength: Creating Attitudes that are Persistent, Resistant, and Predictive of Behavior," in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, (eds.) Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 93-130.

Puto, Chistopher, Wesley Patton, and Ronald King (1985). "Risk Handling Strategies in Industrial Vendor Selection Decisions," Journal of Marketing, 49, 89-98.

Ram, S. (1987). "A Model of Innovative Resistance," in M. Wallendorf and P. Anderson (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14, Provo, Utah: Association for Consumer Research, 208-215.

Ram, S. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1989). "Consumer Resistance to Innovations: The Marketing Problem and Its Solutions," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6, 2, 5-14.

Robertson, Thomas S. (1971). Innovative Behavior and Communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rogers, Everett M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., New York: Free Press.

Roseman, I.J., M.S. Spindel, and P.E. Jose (1990). "Appraisals of Emotion-Eliciting Events: Testing a Theory of Discrete Emotions," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 899-915.

Sheth, Jagdish N. (1981). "Psychology of Innovation Resistance: The Less Developed Concept (LDC) in Diffusion Research," Research in Marketing, 4, 273-282.

Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner (1985). "The Social Identity Theory of Group Behavior," In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, vol.2. eds. Steven Worchel and William G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 7-24.

Turner, John C.(1991). Social Influence, Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

von Hippel (1982). "Get New Products from Customers," Harvard Business Review, 60, March/April, 117-122.

von Hippel (1988). The Source of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.

Zaltman, Gerald and Melanie Wallendorf(1983). Consumer Behavior: Basic Findings and Management Implications, New York: John Wiley & Sons.



Richard P. Bagozzi, University of Michigan
Kyu-Hyun Lee, Hannam University


NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26 | 1999

Share Proceeding

Featured papers

See More


Asymmetry in Susceptibility to Fake News due to Political Orientation

Hyerin Han, University of Minnesota, USA
Ryan Wang, University of Minnesota, USA
Akshay Rao, University of Minnesota, USA

Read More


B5. Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness, But What About Buying Trust? The Effectiveness of Financial Compensation in Restoring Trust After Double Deviation

Valentina Ortiz Ubal, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
Cristiane Pizzutti, UFRGS
Katja Gelbrich, Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt

Read More


B1. Dynamic Pricing in Stationary Retailing - The Role of Consumer's Trust

Maximilian Clemens Pohst, Heinrich-Heine-University
Caspar Krampe, Heinrich-Heine-University
Peter Kenning, Heinrich-Heine-University

Read More

Engage with Us

Becoming an Association for Consumer Research member is simple. Membership in ACR is relatively inexpensive, but brings significant benefits to its members.