While much research has emphasized improving current new product concept techniques, little work has focused on trait-based approaches that specify which consumers are the “right” ones to use in the new product development process, particularly in the consumer goods industry. The authors propose that the right consumers to use possess what they call an “emergent nature,” defined as the unique capability to imagine or envision how concepts might be developed so that they will be successful in the mainstream marketplace. The authors draw on research on personality theory and information-processing styles to support their conceptualization and develop and validate a highly reliable scale to measure emergent nature (Study 1). In subsequent multipart studies, they show in both group (Studies 2a–2c) and individual (Studies 3a and 3b) settings across two distinct product categories that consumers high in emergent nature are able to develop product concepts that mainstream consumers find significantly more appealing and useful than concepts developed by typical, lead user, or even innovative consumers.
AllenChris T., and JaniszewskiChris (1989), “Assessing the Role of Contingency Awareness in Attitudinal Conditioning with Implications for Advertising Research,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(February), 30–43.
2.
BarczakGloria, GriffinAbbie, and KahnKenneth B. (2009), “PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(January), 3–23.
3.
BeattySharon E., and TalpadeSalil (1994), “Adolescent Influence in Family Decision Making: A Replication with Extension,”Journal of Consumer Research, 21(September), 332–41.
4.
ChandyRajesh, and TellisGerard J. (1998), “Organizing for Radical Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35(November) 474–87.
5.
ChildersTerry L., HoustonMichael J., and HecklerSusan E. (1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal Information Processing,”Journal of Consumer Research, 12(September), 125–35.
6.
ChurchillGilbert A.Jr. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,”Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 64–73.
7.
CostaPaul T.Jr., and McCraeRobert R. (1992), NEO PI-R Professional Manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI).Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
8.
DahanEly, and HauserJohn R. (2002), “The Virtual Customer,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(5), 332–53.
9.
DahanEly, and SrinivasanV. (2000), “The Predictive Power of Internet-Based Product Concept Testing Using Visual Depiction and Animation,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(2), 99–110.
10.
DahlDarren W., and MoreauPage (2002), “The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking During New Product Ideation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 39(February), 47–60.
11.
DahlDarren W., and MoreauPage (2007), “Thinking Inside the Box: Why Consumers Enjoy Constrained Creative Experiences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 44(August), 357–69.
12.
DolanRobert, J. (1993), Managing the New Product Process.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
13.
DvorakPhred, and BadalJaclyne (2007), “This Is Your Brain on the Job: Neuroscientists Are Finding That Business Leaders Really May Think Differently,”The Wall Street Journal, (September 20, Eastern Edition), B1.
14.
EpsteinSeymour, PaciniRosemary, Denes-RajVeronika, and HeierHarriet (1996), “Individual Differences in Intuitive-Experiential and Analytical-Rational Thinking Styles,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405.
15.
FenigsteinAllan, ScheierMichael F., and BussArnold H. (1975), “Public and Private Self-Consciousness: Assessment and Theory,”Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–27.
16.
GanesanShankar (1994), “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer–Seller Relationships,”Journal of Marketing, 58(April), 1–19.
17.
GoughHarrison, G. (1979), “A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398–1405.
18.
GovindarajanVijay, and KopallePraveen (2004), “Can Incumbents Introduce Radical and Disruptive Innovations?” Marketing Science Institute Working Paper No. 04–001, Cambridge, MA.
19.
GreenPaul E., KriegerAbba M., and VavraTerry G. (1997), “Evaluating New Products,”Marketing Research, 9(4), 12–21.
20.
GriffinAbbie (1997), “PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429–58.
21.
GuestGreg, BunceArwen, and JohnsonLaura (2006), “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability,”Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
22.
KlinePaul (2000), The Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2d ed. London: Routledge.
23.
KopallePraveen, and LehmannDonald R. (2001), “Strategic Management of Expectations: Role of Disconfirmation Sensitivity and Perfectionism,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38(August), 386–94.
24.
LilienGary L., MorrisonPamela D., SearlsKathleen, SonnackMary, and von HippelEric (2002), “Performance Assessment of the Lead User Idea-Generation Process for New Product Development,”Management Science, 48(8), 1042–1059.
25.
ManoHaim, and OliverRichard L. (1993), “Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption Experience: Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(December), 451–66.
26.
McCraeRobert, R. (1987), “Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness to Experience,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–65.
27.
MidgleyDavid F., and DowlingGrahame R. (1978), “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement,”Journal of Consumer Research, 4(March), 229–42.
28.
MoormanChristine (1995), “Organizational Market Information Processes: Cultural Antecedents and New Product Outcomes,”Journal of Marketing Research, 32(August), 318–35.
29.
MorrisonPamela D., RobertsJohn H., and von HippelEric (2000), “Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market,”Management Science, 46(12), 1513–27.
30.
NielsenJakob, and LandauerThomas K. (1993), “A Mathematical Model of the Finding of Usability Problems,” in Proceedings of the INTERACT ‘93 and CHI ‘93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.New York: Association for Computing Machinery,206–213.
31.
NorrisPaul, and EpsteinSeymour (2003), “Objective Correlates of Experiential Processing,” working paper, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
32.
NovakThomas P., and HoffmanDonna L. (2009), “The Fit of Thinking Style and Situation: New Measures of Situation-Specific Experiential and Rational Cognition,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36(June), 56–72.
33.
PetersonSuzanne J., BalthazardPierre A., WaldmanDavid A., and ThatcherRobert W. (2008), “Neuroscientific Implications of Psychological Capital: Are the Brains of Optimistic, Hopeful, Confident, and Resilient Leaders Different?”Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 342–53.
34.
RamseyRosemary P., and SohiRavipreet S. (1997), “Listening to Your Customers: The Impact of Perceived Salesperson Listening Behavior on Relationship Outcomes,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(Spring), 127–37.
35.
RaudenbushStephen W., and BrykAnthony S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
36.
RogersEverett, M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.
37.
RookDennis W., and FisherRobert J. (1995), “Normative Influences on Impulsive Buying Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 22(December), 305–313.
38.
SchreierMartin, OberhauserStefan, and PrüglReinhard (2007), “Lead Users and the Adoption and Diffusion of New Products: Insights from Two Extreme Sports Communities,”Marketing Letters, 18(June), 15–30.
39.
SlomanSteven, A. (1996), “The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning,”Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.
40.
SmithEliot R., and DeCosterJamie (2000), “Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems,”Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131.
41.
StanovichKeith E., and WestRichard F. (1997), “Reasoning Independently of Prior Belief and Individual Differences in Actively Open-Minded Thinking,”Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 342–57.
42.
SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M., and GielensKatrijn (2003), “Consumer and Market Drivers of the Trial Rate of New Consumer Products,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30(December), 368–84.
43.
SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M., ter HofstedeFrenkel, and WedelMichel (1999), “A Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National-Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness,”Journal of Marketing, 63(April), 55–69.
44.
SwinyardWilliam, R. (1993), “The Effects of Mood, Involvement, and Quality of Store Experience on Shopping Intentions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), September, 271–80.
45.
TrapnellPaul D., and CampbellJennifer D. (1999), “Private Self-Consciousness and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: Distinguishing Rumination from Reflection,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 284–304.
46.
VojakBruce A., GriffinAbbie, PriceRaymond L., and PerlovKonstantin (2006), “Characteristics of Technical Visionaries as Perceived by American and British Industrial Physicists,”R&D Management, 36(1), 17–26.
47.
Von HippelEric (1986), “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts,”Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.
48.
WickensThomas, D. (1989), Multiway Contingency Tables Analysis for the Social Sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
