MICHAL HERZENSTEIN, STEVEN S. POSAVAC, and J.

JOŠKO BRAKUS*

This article explores how consumers’ self-regulation affects the

likelihood of purchase of new and really new products. A mall-intercept
field study shows that consumers with a chronic disposition to be
promotion focused own more new high-technology goods and newly
launched repeat-purchase items than prevention-focused consumers.
There is no difference in ownership of products that have been available
for many years. Two laboratory experiments further investigate these
findings. In Study 2, the authors manipulate regulatory focus and find that
when risks associated with a really new product are not specified to
consumers, promotion-focused consumers state higher purchase
intentions than prevention-focused consumers. However, when the
judgmental context makes the risks salient, prevention- and promotion-
focused participants are equally unlikely to purchase the product. Study 3
demonstrates that consumers’ self-regulation is unrelated to purchase
intentions for products that are not portrayed as new. Mediation analyses
in both laboratory studies show that the effect of regulatory focus on
purchase intentions for new products is due to concerns about the
performance of the new technology, which are more pronounced among
prevention-focused consumers. Finally, the authors discuss managerial
implications.

Adoption of New and Really New Products:

The Effects of Self-Regulation Systems
and Risk Salience

Marketers have spent considerable effort understanding advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and
consumers’ adoption of new and really new products. observability. Ostlund (1974) notes the importance of per-
Gregan-Paxton and John (1997) define really new products ceived risk. The literature is filled with debate about
as innovations that defy straightforward classification in whether product innovativeness affects new product adop-
terms of existing product categories and create a new cate- tion positively because of increasing competitive advantage
gory rather than reallocate shares within existing categories. or negatively because of consumers’ fears of novel technol-
In contrast, new products are new models or brands in exist- ogy (i.e., performance and safety; see Rogers 1995).
ing categories. According to Rogers (1995), the adoption of Investigating determinants of new product adoption is
new products can be explained by an innovation’s relative important because product development is costly, life cycles
are short, and competition is fierce. Prior research typically
*Michal Herzenstein is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Alfred Lerner has considered the purchase of such products at the aggre-
College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware (e-mail: gate level, while the underlying processes have been rela-
[email protected]). Steven S. Posavac is Associate Dean for MBA
Programs and Associate Professor of Marketing (e-mail: steve.posavac@
tively unexplored (for important exceptions, see the “Gen-
simon.rochester.edu), and J. Joško Brakus is Assistant Professor of Market- eral Discussion” section). The current research investigates
ing (e-mail: [email protected]), Simon Graduate School the effects of self-regulation systems and risk on new and
of Business, University of Rochester. This article is based on the first really new product adoption.
author’s doctoral dissertation. The authors thank the two anonymous JMR An example of a recently introduced really new product
reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions and Yan Cao and
Noam Herzenstein for their help in data collection and coding. is the Segway, a single-person battery-powered vehicle that
negotiates curbs and ruts. It was portrayed as technologi-
To read and contribute to reader and author dialogue on JMR, visit cally advanced and safer than some other means of trans-
http://www.marketingpower.com/jmrblog. portation, such as skateboards and bikes. Although it was
tested by the manufacturer and advertised as highly reliable,

© 2007, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing Research

ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) 251 Vol. XLIV (May 2007), 251–260
252 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2007

many units were recalled in 2003 because when some bat- and colleagues (2003) show that in gamble choices, both
teries were near the end of charge, they did not deliver value and probability were important to promotion-focused
enough power, and riders fell off and sustained serious participants, suggesting risk aversion. Prevention-focused
injuries (see segway.com). This case demonstrates the participants viewed the option with the highest probability
inherent problem of really new products; that is, they are and value as the “sure thing” and compared its probability
innovative and advanced but are associated with various with the probabilities of greater amounts (than the sure
risks. thing) to avoid a certain loss; this suggests risk-seeking
In this article, across three studies, we demonstrate that behavior. Shah and Higgins (1997) demonstrate partici-
purchase intentions for new and really new products are pants’ similar behavior in tasks with values that were
guided by promotion and prevention self-regulation systems inversely related to their expectancy. To maximize expected
(Higgins 1998).1 The promotion system is derived from utility, promotion-focused participants chose tasks of
nurturance needs (e.g., advancement, growth) and uses medium expectancy and outcome, but prevention-focused
approach strategies when regulating toward desirable ends. participants committed to tasks whose attainment is neces-
It is sensitive to the presence and absence of positive out- sary, regardless of expectancy, implying risk-seeking behav-
comes. The prevention system is derived from security ior. Similar results are found by Kluger, Yaniv, and Küh-
needs (e.g., safety, protection) and uses avoidance strategies berger (2000), who show that negative framing of
when regulating toward desirable ends. It is sensitive to the Kahneman and Tversky’s (1984) Asian disease problem led
absence and presence of negative outcomes. Regulatory to more risk taking among prevention-focused than
focus is a motivational state that can be determined either promotion-focused participants.
by an individual’s socialization (mainly with a person’s The appeal of applying regulatory focus theory to con-
caretaker) or by situational factors (e.g., framing of task sumer behavior lies in its explanatory power. For example,
instructions). regulatory focus can explain the generation of hypotheses
(Liberman et al. 2001), advertisement appeal (Aaker and
NEW PRODUCTS AND SELF-REGULATION
Lee 2001; Pham and Avnet 2004), perceived importance of
Perceived Risks of Innovations product attributes (Chernev 2004), and aspects of self-
Ram and Sheth (1989) identify four types of perceived control (Dholakia et al. 2006).
risks of innovations: economic risk, physical risk, social The decision to purchase a product may depend on the
consequences, and functional risk. As risk increases, diffu- needs and goals the product satisfies, as well as on price and
sion rate and adoption level decrease (Rogers 1995; Sheth other costs. Consumers’ self-regulation guides their product
1981). We suggest that perceived new product risk does not evaluations (Huffman, Ratneshwar, and Mick 2000). Thus,
affect all consumers equally. Specifically, depending on promotion-focused consumers may differ from prevention-
regulatory focus, consumers may be more or less likely to focused consumers in how they weigh the needs satisfied by
incorporate risk into product evaluations. a new product against its costs. New products are typically
riskier than existing products, but they also have the poten-
Self-Regulation and New Products tial benefit of addressing unmet needs or satisfying needs
People’s regulatory focus influences their decision mak- better. We posit that promotion-focused consumers may
ing in many ways. For example, regulatory focus may lead readily purchase new products, whereas prevention-focus
to consistent choice biases. Crowe and Higgins (1997) find consumers may be reticent.
that promotion-focused decision makers typically employ
advancement tactics, seek accomplishments, and exhibit a New Product Performance Uncertainty
risky bias, whereas prevention-focused decision makers Ram and Sheth (1989) define “functional risk” as per-
typically use precautionary tactics, try to avoid mistakes, formance uncertainty due to insufficient testing of a new
and are conservatively biased. Using the endowment effect, technology by its manufacturer. We expand this concept to
Liberman and colleagues (1999) find additional support for include any reason for product underperformance; for
these biases. They find that promotion-focused participants example, the malfunction may result from the manufacturer
were more willing than prevention-focused participants to (e.g., the lack of sufficient testing) or from consumers’
exchange an object in their possession, but only when they problems (e.g., difficulties using a complex new technol-
believed that the new alternative constituted an advance- ogy). New product performance uncertainty includes all the
ment. Their goal was not to change the object per se but reasons a new product may not perform well, and if uncer-
rather to use it as a means for improvement and growth. In tainty is strong enough, it may inhibit purchase.
contrast, prevention-focused participants had a conservative Although risk is inherent in the purchase of new prod-
preference for stability. ucts, perceptions of this risk may vary as a function of regu-
Although the two concepts are correlated, risk propensity latory focus. Given prevention-focused consumers’ procliv-
is not a defining characteristic of regulatory focus. Higgins ity to act to avoid losses and negative outcomes, they may
typically be sensitive to the risky nature of a new product
1For ease of exposition, we typically use the term “new product” to refer purchase. For example, they may generate concerns about
to both new and really new products because consumers often respond to use when they consider a new product. In contrast,
both product types similarly. We draw a clear distinction when there is an promotion-focused consumers tend to focus on gains and
important conceptual difference between new and really new products. In
this article, we concentrate on consumer goods. Perceptions and purchase
thus may be relatively insensitive to new product risk. We
intentions of other products, such as skydiving lessons, drugs, or insurance, do not anticipate a relationship between ownership of estab-
may be differently influenced by consumers’ regulatory focus. lished products (widely accepted and available for many
Adoption of New and Really New Products 253

years) and regulatory focus, because risks associated with sex, age, education, or income between the groups: χ2(1) =
their purchase and usage are low. .26, p = .6; χ2(3) = 5.032, p = .17; χ2(3) = 3.345, p = .34;
H1: Promotion-focused consumers are more likely than and χ2(5) = 8.885, p = .16, respectively.
prevention-focused consumers to purchase new and really As Table 2 documents, ownership of the following new
new products. However, regulatory focus is unrelated to products was higher among promotion-focused than
ownership of established (i.e., not new) products. prevention-focused participants: fast Internet, new televi-
sion, game console, camcorder, all-in-one printer, cell
We first present the results of a field study in which we phone with camera, flat monitor (for home computers),
measured participants’ reported ownership of products and portable DVD, in-car DVD, and digital telephone.
their regulatory focus. Next, we describe two laboratory Promotion-focused participants were also more likely to
experiments. Their purpose was to investigate the process have bought teeth-whitening strips, Dryel, and pay-per-
underlying the effect of regulatory focus on purchase inten- view movies. Thus, regulatory focus affects ownership of
tions for new products and to delineate boundary both expensive and inexpensive repeat-purchase new prod-
conditions. ucts. None of the new products were owned more by
STUDY 1 prevention-focused than promotion-focused participants.
These results strongly support H1. Ownership of established
Method products (cell phones, CD players, DVDs, microwave
Participants were 250 mall visitors who were compen- ovens, and personal computers) is high and equal among all
sated for their participation. Half the participants were participants. This is not surprising, because these estab-
women, and we restricted age from 25 to 65 years because lished products are considered essential.
we suspected that people younger than age 25 may be
financially dependent on their parents and therefore may Discussion
not be making the purchase decisions. We selected the The results of the field study confirmed H1. Ownership of
upper bound of 65 years of age because older consumers new and really new products (both durable goods and
may not be interested in highly technological goods (see the repeat-purchase items) was higher among promotion-
description of participants in Table 1). The main dependent focused than prevention-focused consumers, but there was
variable was product ownership. Specifically, participants no relationship between regulatory focus and established
were asked, “Have you ever purchased this product for your product ownership. Although Study 1 shows that actual pur-
own use?” Products were presented in groups according to chase decisions are consistent with H1, it neither identifies
purpose (e.g., DVD, in-car DVD, DVD recorder), not by why promotion-focused consumers are more likely than
date of introduction. We measured regulatory focus with the prevention-focused consumers to purchase new products
regulatory focus questionnaire (Higgins et al. 2001), which nor delineates boundary conditions of this relationship. We
includes two psychometrically distinct subscales: promo- conducted two laboratory experiments to explore these
tion and prevention. issues.
Results
Following the work of Higgins and colleagues (2001), we STUDY 2
classified participants as promotion or prevention focused The context in which a new product is encountered may
according to a median split on the difference between their affect perceptions of new product risk. Specifically, the con-
subscale scores. There were no significant differences in text in which a new product appears might make risks asso-

Table 1
STUDY 1: DESCRIPTION OF MALL VISITORS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY

Promotion (%) Prevention (%) Total (%)

Sex Female 51.4 48.2 50.0
Male 48.6 51.8 50.0
Age 25–34 32.9 30.9 32.0
35–44 30.0 26.4 28.4
45–54 32.9 30.9 32.0
55–65 04.3 11.8 7.6
Education Junior high .7 .9 .8
High school 29.3 21.7 26.0
College 40.7 51.9 45.5
Graduate 29.3 25.5 27.6
Family income Below $20K0 9.4 8.3 8.9
$20K–$40K0 21.6 33.0 26.6
$41K–$60K0 27.3 28.4 27.8
$61K–$80K0 12.9 14.7 13.7
$81K–$100K 15.8 8.3 12.5
Above $100K 12.9 7.3 10.5
254 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2007

Table 2
STUDY 1: OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTS AS A FUNCTION OF REGULATORY FOCUS

Promotion (n = 140) (%) Prevention (n = 110) (%) χ2(1) p

New products Fast Internet 57.9 44.5 4.373 .037
New televisiona 46.4 31.8 5.479 .019
Game console 45.7 32.7 4.329 .037
Camcorder 45.0 30.0 5.859 .015
Whitening strips 42.1 29.1 4.533 .033
Pay-per-view 41.4 28.2 4.715 .030
All-in-oneb 40.0 27.3 4.422 .035
Cell camera 32.1 20.9 3.926 .048
Flat monitor 30.0 19.1 3.889 .049
Portable DVD 25.7 14.5 4.665 .031
In-car DVD 18.8 08.2 5.523 .019
Dryelc 17.9 09.1 3.932 .047
Digital telephoned 12.9 05.5 3.890 .049
Established products Cell phone 89.3 84.5 1.240 n.s.
CD player 85.0 86.4 0.093 n.s.
DVD 84.3 78.2 1.529 n.s.
Microwave 75.7 80.0 0.651 n.s.
Personal computer 75.7 72.7 0.289 n.s.
aOwnership of “new television” includes ownership of at least one of the following: high-definition television, plasma television, home theater system, or
digital video recorder (e.g., TiVo).
bAll-in-one printers are machines that can print, scan, copy, and fax documents.
cDryel is a home dry-cleaning product.
dDigital telephones are telephone-like devices that enable the user to make telephone calls over the Internet rather than using traditional telephone services
(e.g., Vonage is a company that sells digital telephone services).
Notes: n.s. = not significant.

ciated with purchase salient. For example, consumer maga- (explicit versus implicit risk) in a 2 × 2 between-subjects
zine reviews of new products and especially of really new design.
products often caution along such lines. If risks associated
with such products are highly salient, promotion-focused Method
consumers may be as sensitive to risk as prevention-focused Design and stimuli. A really new product was the focus
consumers, because though promotion-focused consumers of this experiment—a vehicle that could function as a car
are unlikely to generate concerns about risk spontaneously, and a boat (named Aquada), which was commercialized in
such concerns are likely to be considered if context makes the United Kingdom and New Zealand in 2004. We
them obvious. Thus, consumers who are either prevention excluded from the sample one participant who knew about
focused or in a context in which new product risk is explicit the car/boat. All participants read a product description
(risks are contextually specified) are likely to be sensitive to allegedly taken from a leading consumer magazine. All
it and, accordingly, to exhibit lower purchase intentions technical aspects and vehicle descriptions were taken from
than consumers who are promotion focused in contexts in the manufacturer’s brochure. We manipulated risk salience
which new product risk is implicit (implied because a prod- by continuing the quotation with either of the following:
uct is new but not otherwise specified). “This is a very new and remarkable technology that has
H2: Purchase intentions for new and really new products are
been tested only by the manufacturer” (the implicit-risk
higher when a promotion focus is induced and when the condition) or “This is a very new and remarkable technol-
risk associated with purchase is implicit than if either pre- ogy that has been tested only by the manufacturer. Although
vention focus is induced or purchase risk is salient in the the manufacturer’s lab tests of reliability, road crash tests,
judgmental context. and water safety were good, you have to remember that
only a few people have driven it so far. Therefore it might
Consistent with our conceptions of new product perform- be the case that not all the possible malfunctions have been
ance uncertainty, we expected the following between- identified and corrected” (the explicit-risk condition).
condition difference and mediation relationships: We manipulated regulatory focus with scenarios framed
either in promotion or in prevention terms that created the
H3: New product performance uncertainty is lower in the
promotion-focused/implicit-risk condition than if either a
need to purchase the car/boat. Participants were asked to
prevention focus is induced or a purchase risk is salient in imagine themselves five years after graduation, with a great
the judgmental context. job and family, living next to a lake but working on the
H4: New product performance uncertainty mediates the other side, and being able to save significant commute time
between-condition difference in purchase intentions of a if they purchased the car/boat and drove across the lake.
new product. The promotion scenario read, “It is very important for you
to find ways to shorten this long commute time,” and the
We tested H2–H4 experimentally by manipulating regula- prevention scenario read, “It is very important for you to
tory focus (prevention versus promotion) and risk salience avoid not being able to shorten this long commute time.”
Adoption of New and Really New Products 255

Procedure and participants. Two hundred three MBA or explicit) analysis of variance (ANOVA) of participants’
students (mean age = 29 years, 31% were female) partici- stated purchase intentions. Consistent with expectations, we
pated in the study and were randomly assigned to an exper- found a significant interaction between regulatory focus and
imental condition. Participants received a packet that con- risk salience (F(1, 199) = 3.78, p = .05). There were also
tained a description of the product and a manipulation of significant main effects for both regulatory focus
regulatory focus and risk salience. Participants were asked (F(1, 199) = 9.32, p < .01) and risk salience (F(1, 199) =
to assume that purchasing this product was financially fea- 4.47, p = .04; see Table 3).
sible. After answering the questions, participants were More important, consistent with H2, planned contrasts
debriefed, compensated, and excused. showed that purchase intentions for the new product were
Dependent variables and measures. As “beauty is in the higher in the promotion/implicit-risk condition (M = 7.11)
eye of the beholder,” the newness level of a product is not than in the remaining three conditions (M = 6.08, 5.80, and
only objective (i.e., the introduction date) but also subjec- 5.83; t199 = 4.22, p < .001; see Table 3). Moreover, regula-
tive to consumers. To ensure that the car/boat was perceived tory focus had an effect on purchase intentions when risk
as a really new product, we asked participants to rate two was implicit (t199 = 3.70, p < .001) but not when risk was
items with regard to the following statement about their explicit (t199 = .65, not significant) in the decision context.
perceptions of the product’s newness: “Based on the above Thus, when context made the risks associated with purchas-
description of the Aquada, please rate how new you think it ing a new product salient, consumers were reluctant to
is” (1 = “not at all new,” and 9 = “extremely new”; 1 = “not adopt it, regardless of their regulatory focus. However, in
a novel product,” and 9 = “extremely novel product”). the more naturalistic context in which risks were not salient,
These items were combined into one newness measure with prevention-focused consumers were less likely than
good reliability (α = .80). Two open-ended questions about promotion-focused consumers to purchase the new product,
content appeared at the end of the questionnaire to examine presumably because they were relatively more likely to gen-
whether participants read the story carefully: “In the story erate concerns about new product consumption sponta-
above, you live next to…” and “How many hours a day do neously (a possibility we test subsequently).
you currently spend on the road?” They answered the ques- We used the free response data to test notions about con-
tions without reexamining the story. sumers’ new product performance uncertainty. Two judges
We measured the influence of regulatory focus and risk who were blind to the hypotheses coded participants’
salience on purchase intentions with two nine-point Likert- thoughts and categorized them as (1) product use concerns
type questions that we combined (α = .76): “Suppose that (e.g., “Buying the Aquada can save 2.5 hours, but nobody
you’re in the above situation. How likely is it that you will uses it right now. It may have some problems you didn’t
purchase the Aquada when it becomes available?” and expect.” “The possible malfunctions which are not identi-
“How confident you are that the Aquada is the best solution fied would make me think twice.”), (2) the product itself
for you in this situation?” We explored process with the fol- (e.g., “This concept looks very good. Price should be OK
lowing open-ended question: “Please write a few lines too.” “Not a boat person, so will not buy.”), (3) the scenario
describing what was on your mind as you answered the last (e.g., “If I was in a situation that required four hours’ travel
question.” time per day, I would do whatever necessary to shorten
this.” “I would love to spend more time with my family.”),
Results (4) missing product information (e.g., “I have to see it to
Participants perceived the product as new (M = 6.55, believe it. How exactly does this thing work?”), or (5)
Mdn = 7), and there were no between-condition differences irrelevant or not belonging to one of the other categories
(F(3, 198) < 1). The participants read the manipulation (e.g., “Why is the scale 9 and not 10?”). The proportion of
story carefully. They correctly answered the two aforemen- interjudge agreement was .84, and the proportion reduction
tioned questions mentioned in 85% of the cases, and there in loss reliability measure of the categorization was 89
were no between-condition differences (F(3, 198) < 1). (Rust and Cooil 1994). Disagreements were settled with
Participants’ responses were unrelated to demographics discussion. We hypothesized that participants’ thoughts
(sex, age, and marital status); thus, we did not consider about performance uncertainty would mediate the purchase
these demographic variables further. To test our hypotheses intention difference between the promotion/implicit-risk
about purchase intentions, we performed a 2 (regulatory condition and the remaining conditions. To test this hypoth-
focus: promotion or prevention) × 2 (risk salience: implicit esis, we computed an index of performance uncertainty by

Table 3
STUDY 2: PURCHASE INTENTIONS AND PERFORMACE UNCERTAINTY INDEX AS FUNCTIONS OF REGULATORY FOCUS AND
RISK SALIENCE

Regulatory Focus
Dependent Variable Risk Salience Promotion Prevention
Purchase intentions Implicit 07.11% 05.80%
Explicit 06.08% 05.83%
Performance uncertainty Implicit 10.30% 34.50%
Explicit 29.80% 39.10%
256 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2007

calculating the proportion of thoughts about performance support for this reasoning). The second purpose was to gen-
uncertainty to total thoughts (see Posavac et al. 2004). Con- eralize the performance uncertainty measure to consumers’
sistent with H3, less performance uncertainty was generated concerns about their ability to use the new product cor-
in the promotion/implicit-risk condition than in the other rectly. Although Study 3 considers a different type of per-
conditions (tcontrast, 198 = 4.96, p < .001; see Table 3). formance uncertainty, we nevertheless expected that the
To test H4, we conducted an analysis of covariance of role of this variable in mediating the effect of regulatory
purchase intention, with regulatory focus and risk salience focus on purchase intentions for new products would be
as independent variables and performance uncertainty as a similar. The third purpose was to replicate our core findings
covariate. Consistent with our expectations, the previously using a completely different product and population.
significant difference between the promotion/implicit-risk
condition and the remaining conditions became nonsignifi- Self-Regulation and Product Newness
cant when we included performance uncertainty as a covari- One question that arises from Study 2 is whether
ate (F(1, 197) = 1.73, p = .19), but the covariate was signifi- promotion-focused consumers are more likely than
cant (F(1, 197) = 46.29, p < .0001). A Sobel test (Iacobucci prevention-focused consumers to purchase any product,
and Duhachek 2004) confirmed the mediational role of per- regardless of its newness. Although Study 1 suggests that
formance uncertainty (z = 3.98, p < .001). this is not the case, survey methodology prevents us from
As we mentioned previously, whether a product is new is ruling out the possibility that product type (versus newness)
idiosyncratic to the consumer. To explore this issue further, accounts for similar ownership of existing products among
we divided the sample into two groups according to a promotion- and prevention-focused consumers. In Study 3,
median split of the perception-of-product-newness measure. a product was portrayed as either new or established. Con-
We repeated the previous analyses and found a significant sistent with Studies 1 and 2, we expected that regulatory
interaction between regulatory focus and risk salience on focus would affect purchase likelihood when the product
purchase intentions for the group that rated the product 7 or was portrayed as new. In contrast, we expected that regula-
higher (F(1, 108) = 5.011, p = .03). When we added per- tory focus would be unrelated to purchase intentions of an
formance uncertainty as a covariate, the effects of regula- established product because risk would be less and, accord-
tory focus, risk salience, and the interaction became non- ingly, that performance uncertainty concerns would not
significant, but the covariate was significant (F(1, 106) = arise when a product was described as established, regard-
33.423, p < .01). These effects were less pronounced for less of regulatory focus.
participants who rated the product below 7. Consistent with
H5: Regulatory focus is related to purchase intentions toward a
Study 1, this indicates that perceptions of product newness product when it is portrayed as new but not when it is por-
are important and that regulatory focus may not play the trayed as established.
same role in purchase decisions of new and established
products (a possibility we test for in Study 3). As in Study 2, we expected that performance uncertainty
would mediate the effect of regulatory focus on purchase
Discussion intention of a new product. Thus, we tested H3 and H4
Taken together, the results support the hypotheses. Pur- again.
chase intentions were higher among promotion-focused
participants who evaluated the product in the implicit-risk Method
context than among participants in the other three condi- Design and stimuli. We manipulated two between-
tions. In the default judgment context, in which risks of pur- subjects factors: regulatory focus (promotion or prevention)
chase and use of a new product were not explicitly made and newness of the product (new or existing). To create two
salient, regulatory focus affected purchase intentions for the levels of novelty for the same product, we selected a famil-
new product such that promotion-focused consumers stated iar product that potentially can be rather new: a digital cam-
higher purchase intentions than did prevention-focused con- era. We constructed two versions of an advertisement fea-
sumers. When new product risk was contextually salient, turing the same camera but with different headlines, text,
consumers were equally unfavorable to the new product, and taglines, which allowed us to describe the camera as
regardless of their regulatory focus. Uncertainty about the either new or existing while keeping all other aspects con-
new product’s performance drove these effects; perform- stant. Both advertisements featured a picture of the camera,
ance uncertainty was low only among promotion-focused but the manufacturer and model were removed. The head-
consumers who made judgments in a context that did not line in the new product advertisement read, “Stylish.
make new product risk salient. Finally, our results were Advanced—New Generation.” The text was allegedly taken
more pronounced for consumers who perceived the product from a leading consumer magazine and noted that though
as newer. some of the new features would take some time to master,
the camera was sure to revolutionize digital photography.
STUDY 3 The tagline was, “XZ-5000®. A Totally New Experience.”
Study 3 had three aims. First, further investigation of the The existing product ad headline read, “Stylish. High Qual-
risky nature of products is in order because the hypotheses ity.” The text claimed that the camera had all the great fea-
we developed for Study 2 were predicated on new products tures expected in a high-quality digital camera; the tagline
being the riskier choice. It is important to demonstrate that read, “XZ-5000®. Excellence.” To avoid bias due to partici-
effects of regulatory focus on purchase intention would be pants’ knowledge, no features were mentioned.
obtained only for a new product but not when a product has Because products that manufacturers define as new are
been available for several years (Study 1 provides initial not necessarily new to consumers, we pretested our adver-
Adoption of New and Really New Products 257

tisements. Twenty-two undergraduate students from the 5000® digital camera?” Responses were given on a Likert-
same pool of students as the main study were shown one of type scale ranging from 1 (“not at all likely” [to purchase
the advertisements and were asked to rate the following this camera]) to 9 (“extremely likely”). The second was a
statement: “Based on the ad you just saw, please rate how percentage estimate of the likelihood of purchase: “Again,
new you think the XZ-5000 is” (1 = “not at all new,” and assume that you will be buying a digital camera before you
9 = “extremely new”). Consistent with our intent, partici- leave. Now, please provide a percentage estimate from 0%
pants who saw the new product advertisement rated the to 100% to indicate your likelihood of buying the XZ-
product as newer (M = 7.0) than those who saw the existing 5000® digital camera. Of course, 0% means that there
product advertisement (M = 5.58; t20 = 1.70, pone-tailed = would be no chance that you would buy this camera, and
.05). To ensure that ad effectiveness did not differ as a func- 100% means that it is absolutely certain that you would buy
tion of newness, we also measured attitude toward the ad on this camera.” We also posed an open-ended question:
nine-point scales anchored by “not at all believable/highly “Please write a few lines describing what was on your mind
believable” and “not at all true/absolutely true”; we meas- as you answered the last question.”
ured attitude toward the brand on nine-point scales Experts and novices understand and learn about really
anchored by “very bad/very good,” “very unfavorable/very new products differently (Hoeffler 2003; Moreau, Lehman,
favorable,” and “not a useful product/a very useful product.” and Markman 2001). Thus, we asked participants whether
There were no differences between the conditions in either they already owned a digital camera; 129 participants
advertisement (believability: F(1, 21) < 1; truthfulness: (77.7%) did not. Whether participants owned a digital cam-
F(1, 21) < 1) or brand attitudes (the brand items were com- era did not affect purchase intentions; thus, we included all
bined; α = .91, F(1, 21) = 2.55, not significant). We asked participants in the analyses. Demographics were unrelated
these questions again in the experiment and observed simi- to the dependent variables, and we did not consider them
lar results; thus, we were able to rule out ad-related further.
confounds.
We manipulated regulatory focus with a scenario framed Results
in promotion or prevention terms that created the need to As in Study 2, two open-ended questions about the con-
purchase a digital camera. Participants were asked to imag- tent of the story demonstrated that participants read the
ine that they decided to join the Peace Corps, were about to story carefully (correct responses in 83% of the cases), and
be sent to a remote village in Nepal, and needed to send there were no differences among conditions (F(3, 162) < 1).
digital pictures of the village and the scenery to their loved H5 posited that there would be an interaction between
ones at home through satellite Internet. The promotion story regulatory focus and level of product newness with respect
read, “It is really important for you to be able to show your to participants’ purchase likelihood, the main dependent
family and friends how you live in Nepal,” and the preven- variable. We conducted an ANOVA of purchase intentions
tion story read, “It is really important for you to avoid not as a function of regulatory focus and product newness, and
being able to show your family and friends how you live in as we expected, there were no main effects of regulatory
Nepal.” In addition, we manipulated temporal distance with focus or product newness in either measure; however, there
subjective time framings. According to Pennington and was a significant interaction between newness and regula-
Roese (2003), the proximity aspect of goals helps in the tory focus in each (Likert-type: F(1, 162) = 6.48, p = .01;
manipulation of regulatory focus. With respect to distant percentage estimate: F(1, 162) = 5.81, p = .02). The mean
goals, people think about their desirability and of the differ- purchase likelihoods appear in Figure 1 (Likert-type ratings
ent ways to attain them. However, with respect to closer are on the right-hand side, and percentage estimates are on
goals, people consider the details of how to attain them and the left-hand side).
how to prevent having problems with attainment. The Planned contrasts explored the interactions. Participants
promotion-framed story read that participants “still have a in the promotion/new product condition were more willing
month” before leaving for Nepal, and the prevention- to purchase the new product than those in the prevention/
framed story read that participants “have only a month.” new product condition (Likert-type: tcontrast(162) = 2.68, p <
Procedure. One hundred sixty-six undergraduate students .001; percentage estimate: tcontrast(162) = 2.62, p < .001),
(mean age = 20 years, 77 were female) were randomly thus replicating support for H1 and H2. In contrast to the
assigned to one of the experimental conditions and given a new conditions, in the existing conditions, there was no dif-
packet. One version of the story appeared on the first page ference in purchase likelihood as a function of regulatory
of each packet, and one version of the advertisement focus (Likert-type: tcontrast(162) = .95, p > .1; percentage
appeared on the second page. Participants were asked to estimate: tcontrast(162) = .82, p > .1), in support of H5 and
read the story carefully and then to answer the questions corroborating our field study findings.
that followed without reexamining it; they were also To test our expectation that uncertainty about new prod-
instructed to assume that purchasing this product was finan- uct performance would differ as a function of regulatory
cially feasible. After answering the questions, participants focus, two judges coded participants’ free responses in the
were debriefed, compensated, and excused. same manner as Study 2 (proportion of interjudge agree-
Dependent variables and measures. We tested predic- ment = .87, proportion reduction in loss = 92; disagree-
tions about the influence of regulatory focus on the adop- ments were settled with discussion). As in Study 2, many
tion of new products with two purchase intention measures. participants in the new product conditions mentioned con-
The first was similar to that of Study 2: “Assume that you cerns about product use (e.g., “Since the camera is new, it
will be buying a digital camera before leaving for your stay would take some time to learn how to use it effectively. I
in Nepal. How likely would you be to purchase the XZ- wouldn’t want to think about how to use the camera while
258 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2007

Figure 1
STUDY 3: PURCHASE INTENTIONS AS A FUNCTION OF REGULATORY FOCUS AND PRODUCT NEWNESS

Promotion Prevention Promotion Prevention

6 60%

Purchase Intentions (Percentage Estimate)

5.59 56.44%
Purchase Intentions (Likert-Type)

4.95
5 48.28% 50%

4.53
4.42
43.38% 44.03%

4 40%

3 30%
New Established New Established
Product Newness Product Newness

in Nepal.” “It seems like a great camera, but the consumer of regulatory focus on willingness to purchase new products
report quote that said ‘some of the features may take some is driven by the differential uncertainty that prevention- ver-
time to master’ made me hesitate since I only have a month sus promotion-focused people associate with the perform-
left at home.”). Consistent with Study 2, in the new product ance of new products. In Study 3, in general, prevention-
conditions, we found that prevention-focused participants focused participants’ uncertainty reflected concerns about
mentioned more product use uncertainty thoughts than did their ability to master the camera’s new features and worry
promotion-focused participants (Mprom = .06, Mprev = .23; that the camera would fail to address their needs.
t(84) = 3.39, p = .001). None of the participants in the exist- In line with the theory of regulatory focus, an alternative
ing product conditions mentioned such concerns. Mediation explanation of our results may be that promotion-focused
analyses replicated the results of Study 2. An ANOVA of participants preferred the new product because it was por-
purchase likelihood as a function of regulatory focus trayed as innovative, and they usually prefer the option that
revealed significant effects on both purchase likelihood is related to advancement; in contrast, prevention-focused
measures (Likert-type: F(1, 84) = 8.00, p = .006; percentage participants preferred the existing product because it was
estimate: F(1, 84) = 7.40, p = .008). However, when we portrayed as reliable, and they usually prefer the reliable or
included performance uncertainty as a covariate in an safer option. This is not supported by the data, because
analysis of covariance of purchase intention as a function of there was no difference in the purchase likelihood of par-
regulatory focus, the effect of regulatory focus became non- ticipants in the prevention condition for the new versus
significant (Likert-type: F(1, 83) = 2.63, p = .11; percentage existing cameras. Furthermore, Study 2 shows that
estimate: F(1, 83) = 2.81, p = .1), but the covariate was sig- promotion-focused participants had high purchase inten-
nificant (Likert-type: F(1, 83) = 11.89, p = .001; percentage tions for the new product only when the risks associated
estimate: F(1, 83) = 7.93, p = .006). Sobel tests confirmed with it were not explicitly mentioned. That is, promotion-
that performance uncertainty mediated the effect of regula- focused participants do not always prefer the new product,
tory focus on purchase intentions (Likert-type: z = 2.24, p = even though it represents innovativeness and advancement.
.015; percentage estimate: z = 1.96, p = .05). Another alternative explanation may be that the framing of
Discussion the products and stories, not regulatory focus, drives the
results. However, if this is the case, there should have been
Study 3 replicated the finding that promotion-focused an effect of regulatory focus on purchase intentions for
consumers were more likely to purchase new products than existing products. Furthermore, there was no framing in
prevention-focused consumers. Importantly, Study 3 Study 1; only product names appeared.
demonstrates that the effects of regulatory focus on pur-
chase intentions are not ubiquitous but instead are limited to GENERAL DISCUSSION
new products. Indeed, purchase intentions of promotion- In recent years, researchers have made major advances in
and prevention-focused consumers were equivalent when understanding new product adoption. Hoeffler (2003) sug-
the camera was portrayed as an established product. Consis- gests a new measure for really new product preference, and
tent with Study 2, mediation analyses show that the effect Moreau, Lehman, and Markman (2001) show that con-
Adoption of New and Really New Products 259

sumers who are experts in the primary domain of a new research. Our results suggest that the relationship between
product adopt the new product faster but resist adoption of regulatory focus and purchase intentions for new products
really new products because their expertise decreases their is general and robust. Regulatory focus was a good predic-
understanding of the product’s benefits. Moreau, Markman, tor of purchase intentions of many product types that con-
and Lehman (2001) demonstrate that consumers learn faster stitute both new and really new products. Moreover, we
about really new products and make fewer mistakes if they drew our samples from three different populations and
are provided with information about relevant product cate- observed similar effects across multiple measures, includ-
gories. Gregan-Paxton and Moreau (2003) show that, in ing actual purchases and stated purchase intentions.
general, consumers learn about really new products better if Our findings imply that regulatory focus may be an effec-
marketers give them categorization cues than if marketers tive marketing and segmentation tool in new product pro-
give them analogy cues. Gregan-Paxton, Hoeffler, and Zao motion. Because regulatory focus may be induced, mar-
(2005) investigate cases in which categorization of really keters can frame communications to encourage promotion
new products is ambiguous, and they map the cases in focus and shift consumer focus toward positive outcomes,
which consumers employ multiple versus single-category which may favorably affect evaluations and purchase likeli-
strategies to generate product inferences. We show how hood. Manufacturers of established products could stress
regulatory focus, an important construct that is both an indi- uncertainty about new products to slow adoption of new
vidual difference and contextually malleable, affects the competitors. As with most manipulations, consumers may
likelihood of new product adoption We also delineate be differentially susceptible to a manipulation of regulatory
boundary conditions of our core findings and provide evi- focus. Those with a chronic extreme prevention (promotion)
dence of the process by which regulatory focus affects new tendency will likely be less susceptible to a promotion (pre-
product adoption. vention) manipulation. However, our results suggest that
Three studies document that prevention-focused con- enough consumers are susceptible for such a manipulation
sumers perceive and react to new products differently than to have managerial utility. Indeed, in the context of new
do promotion-focused consumers. Using real purchases and products, even a small purchase likelihood increase may
measurement of consumers’ chronic regulatory focus ten- have significant financial implications. The application of
dencies, we showed that ownership of high-tech goods and regulatory focus to new products may be particularly
new repeat-purchase items is higher among promotion- appealing to managers because of implementation ease.
focused than prevention-focused consumers. We found no Products’ life cycles are diminishing, innovations are
differences between promotion- and prevention-focused expensive to develop, and it may be difficult to target con-
consumers in the ownership of established products. Lab sumers who are likely to be innovators. Our results suggest
experiments provided a deeper analysis of this effect. Study that in lieu of such targeting, advertising can facilitate con-
2 showed that when a really new product was considered in sumers’ receptiveness to innovation.
the typical consumer context in which potential product lia-
REFERENCES
bilities were unspecified, prevention-focused participants
were more likely than promotion-focused participants to Aaker, Jennifer L. and Angela Y. Lee (2001), “‘I’ Seek Pleasures
generate concerns about the purchase and use of the prod- and ‘We’ Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in
Information Processing and Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer
uct. When context made the risks associated with buying a
Research, 28 (June), 33–49.
really new product salient, prevention- and promotion- Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Goal-Attribute Compatibility in Con-
focused participants were equally likely to state new sumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1–2),
product-related concerns. The differential propensity of 141–50.
prevention- and promotion-focused participants to generate Crowe, Ellen and E. Tory Higgins (1997), “Regulatory Focus and
concerns when considering a new product had implications Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-
for their likelihood of purchasing the product in both stud- Making,” Organization Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
ies. As long as the judgmental context did not emphasize cesses, 69 (February), 117–32.
risks associated with buying a new product, promotion- Dholakia, Utpal M., Mahesh Gopinath, Richard P. Bagozzi, and
focused participants stated higher purchase intentions than Rajan Nataraajan (2006), “The Role of Regulatory Focus in the
Experience and Self-Control of Desire for Temptations,” Jour-
did prevention-focused participants. Study 2’s finding that nal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (2), 163–75.
regulatory focus was unrelated to purchase intentions when Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer, Steve Hoeffler, and Min Zao (2005),
new product risks were contextually salient, as well as “When Categorization Is Ambiguous: Factors That Facilitate the
mediation analyses in Studies 2 and 3, provides compelling Use of a Multiple Category Inference Strategy,” Journal of Con-
evidence that regulatory focus affects new product purchase sumer Psychology, 15 (2), 127–40.
intentions because consumers’ regulatory focus affects the ——— and Deborah Roedder John (1997), “Consumer Learning
extent to which they generate new product performance- by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer,” Journal
related concerns. Study 3 isolated the effects of regulatory of Consumer Research, 24 (December), 266–84.
focus on purchase intentions toward new products; when ——— and Page Moreau (2003), “How Does Prior Knowledge
Influence Consumer Learning? A Comparison of Analogy and
the camera was described as established, regulatory focus
Categorization Effects,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13
was unrelated to purchase intention, and no performance (4), 422–30.
uncertainty concerns were generated. Higgins, E. Tory (1998), “Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory
Although we focused on performance uncertainty, new Focus as a Motivation Principle,” in Advances in Experimental
products are associated with several different types of risk. Social Psychology, Vol. 30, Mark P. Zanna, ed. New York: Aca-
Exploring other risk types would be worthwhile for further demic Press, 1–46.
260 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2007

———, Ronald S. Friedman, Robert E. Harlow, Lorrain Chen Moreau, C. Page, Donald R. Lehman, and Arthur B. Markman
Idson, Ozlem N. Ayduk, and Amy Taylor (2001), “Achievement (2001), “Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer
Orientations from Subjective Histories of Success: Promotion Response to New Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38
Price Versus Prevention Pride,” European Journal of Social Psy- (February), 14–29.
chology, 31 (January–February), 2–23. ———, Arthur B. Markman, and Donald R. Lehman (2001),
———, Scott Spiegel, Eric J. Johnson, and Raghu Iyengar (2003), “‘What Is It?’ Categorization Flexibility and Consumers’
“Self-Regulation Influences in Risky Choice,” paper presented Responses to Really New Products,” Journal of Consumer
at the annual conference of the Association for Consumer Research, 27 (March), 489–98.
Research, Toronto (October 8–10). Ostlund, Lyman E. (1974), “Perceived Innovation Attributes as
Hoeffler, Steve (2003), “Measuring Preferences for Really New Predictors of Innovativeness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1
Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (November), (September), 23–29.
406–420. Pennington, Ginger L. and Neal J. Roese (2003), “Regulatory
Huffman, Cynthia, S. Ratneshwar, and David Glen Mick (2000), Focus and Temporal Distance,” Journal of Experimental Social
“Consumer Goal Structures and Goal Determination Processes,” Psychology, 39 (November), 563–76.
in The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Pham, Michel Tuan and Tamar Avnet (2004), “Ideals and Oughts
Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires, S. Ratneshwar, David and the Reliance on Affect Versus Substance in Persuasion,”
Glen Mick, and Cynthia Huffman, eds. New York: Routledge, Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 503–518.
9–35. Posavac, Steven S., David M. Sanbonmatsu, Frank R. Kardes, and
Iacobucci, Dawn and Adam Duhachek (2004), “Mediation Analy- Gavin J. Fitzsimons (2004), “The Brand Positivity Effect: When
sis,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31, Barbara E. Evaluation Confers Preference,” Journal of Consumer
Kahn and Mary Frances Luce, eds. Toronto: Association for Research, 31 (December), 643–51.
Consumer Research, 395. Ram, Sundaresan and Jagdish N. Sheth (1989), “Consumer Resis-
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1984), “Choices, Values, tance to Innovations: The Marketing Problem and Its Solu-
and Frames,” American Psychologist, 39 (4), 341–50. tions,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6 (Spring), 5–14.
Kluger, Avraham N., Ilan Yaniv, and Anton Kühberger (2000), Rogers, Everett M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 3d ed. New
“Needs, Self-Regulation, and Risk Preference,” working paper, York: The Free Press.
Jerusalem School of Business Administration, Hebrew Univer- Rust, Roland T. and Bruce Cooil (1994), “Reliability Measures for
sity, Jerusalem. Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Market-
Liberman, Nira, Lorraine C. Idson, Christopher J. Camacho, and ing Research, 31 (February), 1–14.
E. Tory Higgins (1999), “Promotion and Prevention Choices Shah, James and E. Tory Higgins (1997), “Expectancy Value
Between Stability and Change,” Journal of Personality and Effects: Regulatory Focus as a Determinant of Magnitude and
Social Psychology, 77 (December), 1135–45. Direction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73
———, Daniel C. Molden, Lorraine C. Idson, and E. Tory Hig- (September), 447–58.
gins (2001), “Promotion and Prevention Focus on Alternative Sheth, Jagdish N. (1981), “Psychology of Innovation Resistance:
Hypotheses: Implication for Attributional Functions,” Journal of The Less Developed Concept (LCD) in Diffusion Research,” in
Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (April), 5–18. Research in Marketing, Vol. 4, Jagdish N. Sheth, ed. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press, 273–82.