Construct · 3 fields · 4 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one absence, three constructs Nearest construct by meaningstatus quo biascompare 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 non-adoption is status quo bias.
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.
Consumer resistance to an innovation, which Ram and Sheth in 1989 defined as the resistance offered by consumers to an innovation, either because it threatens a satisfactory status quo or because it conflicts with a prior belief structure. Ram and Sheth located that resistance in five barriers: three functional ones of usage, value, and risk, and two psychological ones of tradition and image. Their central claim is that resistance is a normal and expected response to change, not a defect in the consumer and not the mere absence of a purchase: a consumer who has never encountered a product is a non-adopter without resisting anything. Resistance in this meaning precedes and shapes adoption, and Ram and Sheth argued that marketers reduce it by lowering the specific barrier at issue rather than by adding persuasion.[1]
User resistance to an information system, which Kim and Kankanhalli in 2009 modeled as opposition to the change that a new system implementation imposes. The setting is the mandated organizational system, where refusing to adopt is rarely an option and resistance takes the form of reluctance, complaint, or partial compliance rather than a decision not to buy. Kim and Kankanhalli explained that resistance through status quo bias: users weigh the switching costs of moving to the new system against its perceived net benefit, and the sunk costs, transition effort, and loss aversion attached to the incumbent bias them toward staying put. The referent is not a consumer weighing a purchase but an employee defending an established way of working, and the driver is the cost of change rather than a barrier residing in the innovation itself.[2]
Deliberate rejection or reduction of consumption, which Lee, Fernandez, and Hyman in 2009 framed as being against consumption, a chosen stance rather than a barrier or a cost. Here non-use is the goal and not the failure: the anti-consumption literature studies the reasons against acquiring, using, or keeping goods, and treats the non-adopter as an agent with a purpose. The digital form of this stance is disconnection, which Mirbabaie, Stieglitz, and Marx in 2022 described under the label digital detox as the deliberate and temporary reduction of, or abstention from, digital device and service use in response to perceived overuse. In both accounts the person could adopt and chooses not to, so the absence of use expresses a value or a coping strategy. That is unlike the barriers of Ram and Sheth or the switching costs of Kim and Kankanhalli, where the person is impeded rather than opting out.[3][4]
Next
Combine items across the non-adoption 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