The differences between consumer innovation resistance and consumer innovation adoption Quantitative research on the qualitative differences between resistance and adoption in the context of plant-based meat substitutes
Keywords
Loading...
Authors
Issue Date
2022-08-24
Language
en
Document type
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Title
ISSN
Volume
Issue
Startpage
Endpage
DOI
Abstract
Academics disagree on the meaning of resistance and how it differs from adoption. This
study, therefore, provides more clarity about the meaning of resistance and its differences with adoption when looking at the innovation of plant-based meat substitutes. Resistance and adoption were both conceptualized with Breckler’s attitude model, as it makes the comparison easier. The research used a quantitative survey filled in by 265 respondents. Results from the analyses in SPSS Statistics show that resistance is seen as a two-dimensional construct, consisting of 1) resistance emotion and cognition and 2) resistance behaviour. However, adoption is still seen as a one-dimensional construct. This difference in dimensionalities is one of the arguments for resistance and adoption being different concepts. Nevertheless, resistance
and adoption can also be seen as opposites when looking at their significant and negative correlation. In addition, this study also uses antecedents that lead to consumer resistance and adoption of PBMS. Only one out of five antecedents showed a qualitative difference between resistance and adoption, namely perceived healthiness. Perceived voluntariness, perceived animal welfare and perceived healthiness also show the qualitative difference but only when using resistance behaviour. Therefore, resistance behaviour better shows the qualitative difference compared to resistance emotion and cognition as three out of five antecedents show the differences. As a result, consumer innovation resistance is, to a low extent, qualitatively different from adoption when looking at the differences between the dimensionalities of resistance and adoption and the antecedents that show qualitative differences. However, more research is needed to generalise the results of this study, as the sample was not representative.
Future research should focus on further conceptualising resistance with Breckler’s attitude model. In addition, group differences cause differences in outcomes for resistance and adoption, which academics could pay more attention to in the future. Managers and policymakers can use the results of this study to act and strategise so that fewer (food) innovations will become a failure.
Description
Citation
Supervisor
Faculty
Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen