How do form and functional newness affect adoption preference? The moderating role of consumer need for uniqueness

Abstract

PurposeA product communicates to consumers through its form and function, which may generate an effective response. Little is known, however, about the impact of the interaction of form and functional newness on consumers’ adoption preference. Drawing on uniqueness theory, this research aims to propose that the relative importance of form and functional newness to adoption preference could vary depending on the degree of consumers’ need for uniqueness (CNFU).Design/methodology/approachTo mimic real consumption behavior as much as possible in these studies, the authors first choose a product that the respondents are familiar with and use on a daily basis. Second, the authors conduct a series of conjoint analysis in which respondents are presented with a set of options simultaneously and are asked to make a choice of adoption among those options. The authors conduct three conjoint studies using students and adult consumers.FindingsEvidence from three conjoint studies using both student and adult consumer samples confirms the moderating role of CNFU. The results indicate that form and functional newness positively impact adoption preference, the positive effect of form newness is weakened in a compare-and-choose decision when functional newness is in place and this weakened interaction effect is mitigated with increasing CNFU.Research limitations/implicationsThis research makes several contributions to the extant literature. First, the authors investigate the moderating role of CNFU in the interplay between form and functional newness. By identifying a distinctive pattern between high- vs low-CNFU consumers, the authors propose a new aspect to explain the inconclusive results of the interaction effects in previous studies. Extending this line of research, the authors show that there is a dynamic component to the positive influence of form and functional newness on adoption preference. Consumers’ preference for form newness, relative to functional newness, is likely to be lessened with the decrease in their need for uniqueness. Second, this research goes beyond the survey or sales data approaches of prior studies to examine the interaction of form and function in a context that reflects actual decision processes. Assuming that consumers have access to a set of options before making an adoption decision, the authors are able to determine their priorities and preferences for new products. Using conjoint analysis, the authors observe consumers make a trade-off between form and functional newness. This approach allows us to investigate the relative importance of form and functional newness in affecting consumers’ adoption decision. Finally, the consistency of the results of these three studies enhances the robustness of this research.Practical implicationsWhile consumers appreciate improved and newer functionality in general, this may not be the case for a novel form. For consumers who desire to belong or to fit into social norms, adopting a product with an extreme atypical form could be risky and provoke a negative social response. For those with such conservative attitudes, learning costs are likely to overshadow the excitement of owning a radical product. Thus, a product with high functional newness and standard form would be the right choice for this group of consumers. On the other hand, consumers with high CNFU are more likely to overcome concerns regarding the risks and learning costs of a novel form due to their desire to use the unconventional product display to differentiate themselves and establish their uniqueness. Therefore, a product with high functional newness and novel form may be more favorable for them. With this insight, marketers can better define their market segment and position their product strengths. For example, in the competitive smart phone industry, some brands may try to focus on high form newness to capture high-CNFU consumers (e.g. LG Flex curved cell phone).Originality/valueFirst, the authors propose the moderating role of CNFU to explain the gap in the literature. This new view provides product managers and marketers with a better understanding of how consumers in different consumer segments (e.g. high vs low degree of CNFU) behave distinctively in their response to form and functional newness. Second, most of the literature on consumer response to product form has focused on consumer opinion, attitude, perception or product evaluation. This study focuses on measuring consumers’ adoption preference through a conjoint approach. This distinction is important because a positive attitude does not necessarily translate to adoption when consumers make their final choice decision. Third, prior studies test the effects of form and function using sales data or between subject experiments where respondents only view a single product. This approach is less representative of real adoption behavior when the reality is consumers often compare a set of options simultaneously and make an adoption decision among a pool of available options.