Construct · 6 fields · 9 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningpersonal innovativenesscompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to innovativeness is personal innovativeness.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of a system, Rogers's definition, and a matter of when, not of character. He cut the adoption curve at standard deviations from the mean time of adoption into five categories: innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%), and laggards (16%). Moore's business version kept the categories and inserted a "chasm" between the early adopters and the early majority where technology products stall. The category is assigned after the fact from adoption dates; nobody is asked anything.[1][2]
A generalized willingness to change, a personality disposition that Hurt, Joseph, and Cook proposed in 1977 as the thing behind Rogers's adopter categories, so that it could be measured before anyone adopted anything. Their scale asks respondents to agree or disagree with statements about seeking out new ideas, being among the first to try things, and being suspicious of change, and scores them on a single continuum. The difference from the diffusion meaning is the direction of inference: here the trait is measured first and adoption is what it should predict.[3]
Midgley and Dowling separated the degree to which an individual makes innovation decisions independently of the communicated experience of others (innate innovativeness, a latent trait) from actualized innovativeness, the observed early purchase that Rogers counts, and argued the two are linked only through interest in the product category and situational factors. Goldsmith and Hofacker then built the Domain-Specific Innovativeness scale in 1991 on the finding that a global trait predicts little about any one product class: innovativeness about wine and about software are different things and should be measured separately. Consumer research thus holds both a trait and a behaviour, and insists on saying which.[4][5]
The willingness of an individual to try out any new information technology, Agarwal and Prasad's 1998 construct, built by importing the domain-specific argument from consumer research and fixing the domain as information technology. PIIT is a four-item trait scale, positioned as a moderator: it changes how strongly perceived usefulness and compatibility translate into intention, rather than predicting adoption on its own. It is the most-added external construct in UTAUT extensions, usually with no test of the moderation it was built for.[6]
A preferred manner of solving problems, from doing things better within the existing paradigm (adaptors) to doing things differently by breaking it (innovators), Kirton's 1976 dimension, measured by the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Kirton insisted the dimension is orthogonal to capacity and to level: adaptors and innovators are equally creative and equally likely to adopt, they simply generate different kinds of solutions. An innovator here may be a laggard in Rogers's meaning if the innovation on offer is someone else's incremental improvement.[7]
A property of organizations, defined two ways that do not agree. Hurley and Hult treated it as the notion of openness to new ideas as an aspect of a firm's culture, a capacity to innovate, measured by asking managers about their firm's climate. Subramanian and Nilakanta treated it as an enduring behavioural trait to be read off the record: the number of innovations adopted, how early relative to other firms, and how consistently over time. The first is a survey about culture, the second a count with a timestamp; the same word covers both and neither refers to any individual.[8][9]
Next
Combine items across the innovativeness scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct