Consumer Adoption of New Products: Independent versus Interdependent Self-Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In five studies, the authors examine the impact of an independent (vs. interdependent) mindset on consumer adoption of new products. Study 1 demonstrates that consumers in a predominantly independent (vs. interdependent) culture are more willing to adopt really new products, whereas consumers in a predominantly interdependent (vs. independent) culture are more willing to adopt incrementally new products. Studies 2 and 3 conceptually replicate these findings using situationally activated mindsets and demonstrate that this effect is driven by the perceived fit between the product’s newness level and the optimal level of distinctiveness consumers want. Finally, Studies 4a and 4b show that the presence of distinctiveness-dampening cues (i.e., popularity cues) and distinctiveness-enhancing cues (i.e., scarcity cues) can reverse the effect of self-perspective such that the independent self becomes less willing to adopt really new products and more willing to adopt incrementally new products than does the interdependent self. These findings offer practical implications for managing innovation adoption in both domestic and international marketplaces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".