Original Article

Airport Passenger’s Perceived Innovativeness Explaining the Effect of Pursuit Benefits on Intention of Adoption:

,
Yin-Nan Li*, Jong-Duk Jeon**
Author Information & Copyright
*Professor, College of Business, Kwangwoon University
**Ph.D. Aircraft Dispatcher, Flight Training Center, Korea National University of Transportation
Corresponding Author E-mail : zzon1129@ut.ac.kr, Corresponding Author Address : 980, Ochang-daero, Naesu-eup, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheong buk-do, Korea

© Copyright 2023 The Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Nov 16, 2022; Revised: Feb 05, 2023; Accepted: Mar 12, 2023

Published Online: Mar 31, 2023

ABSTRACT

본 연구의 목적은 공항 내 혁신시설에 대한 공항이용객의 평가를 통해 혁신적 서비스 양상과 기틀을 파악하는 것이다. 본 연구는 소비행동의 관점에서 공항이용객의 추구 혜택, 지각된 혁신성, 수용 의도, 구조화에 대한 욕구 등 4가지 개념의 이론에 근거하여 수행되었다. 공항의 혁신시설을 이용한 경험이 있는 299명 성인을 대상으로 2022년 7월 5일부터 9일까지 자료를 수집하였다. 수집된 자료는 공항이용객의 추구혜택과 수용의도 간의 관계에서 공항이용객의 지각된 혁신성의 매개효과 및 공항 이용객의 추구혜택과 지각된 혁신성 간의 관계에서 구조화에 대한 욕구의 조절효과를 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 공항이용객의 추구 혜택은 수용 의도에 긍정적 영향을 미치고, 지각된 혁신성은 수용 의도에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 공항 이용객의 욕구에 근거하여 혁신적인 기능을 향상시켜야 함을 시사한다.

Keywords: Airport Passenger(공항이용객); Pursuit Benefits(추구 혜택); Perceived Innovativeness (지각된 혁신성); Adoption Intention(수용 의도); Personal Need for Structure(구조화에 대한 욕구)

I. INTRODUCTION

Airport passenger behavior trends, airport passenger demand, and service properties are all gradually subdivided in response to rapid changes in the market environment. As a result of serviceization, a comprehensive product and service offering is required in order to deliver value during use and to create mutual benefits (Neely, 2008).

Creating excellent consumer value in an increasingly competitive environment is one of the most significant basic factors (Day, 1990). There is, however, a lack of clarity regarding the benefits that airport passengers seek. There is a need to examine the value of airport passenger products. As a consequence, it is necessary to accurately understand the relationship between passenger convenience benefits and innovation acceptance, as well as to develop an effective market segmentation strategy.

Meanwhile, innovative solutions are necessary to reflect the needs and wants of airport passengers (Fu, Richards, Hughes, and Jones, 2010). Airport passengers must know which properties they are pursuing and which properties they value in order to pinpoint the accuracy of the product in the product properties space. Previous studies have examined the role of internal motivation stimulation and individual characteristics of choice behavior (Lin and Lu, 2000; Lu, Yao, and Yu, 2005). When developing brand-new products, what attributes will be emphasized? When marketing an existing product, what is the attribute of the airport passenger that most accurately describes the product? The answers to such questions are key strategic decisions for most marketers. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the innovation acceptance process from the perspective of airport passengers. It is essential to grasp the core concept of attracting airport passengers to purchase products with updated service patterns, as well as efforts to achieve on-site marketing communication, in order to achieve effective marketing results. Prior studies had some limitations with respect to describing airport passengers' choice patterns.

This study suggests two things. One is a literature review related to marketing strategies and consumption behaviors for newly introduced products. The other involves an analysis of consumer behavior, a framework for evaluating new products, and the type of benefits that consumers seek. The results of this study are expected to have both academic and practical implications. As a result of the above process, this paper presents a comprehensive market analysis that integrates airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB), perceived innovativeness (PI), and intention of adoption (IA). Furthermore, since the personal need for structure (PNS) has been noted as a dispositional variable for revealing unique differences between individuals (Thompson, Naccarato, Parker, and Moskowitz, 2001), we examine the moderating effects of PNS on PB and PI. According to the research model, perceived innovation and passengers' pursuit of benefits influence airport passengers' purchasing and consumption behaviors. In addition, it includes airport passenger perceptions, satisfaction expectations, and individual needs for airport passenger structures. Finally, we discuss the limitations of our paper with respect to our analysis of consumer behavior on a theoretical basis and in the real world. Moreover, we make some recommendations regarding future research on consumption behavior.

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND, HYPOTHESES AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL

2.1 Airport Passenger Pursuit Benefits (PB)

According to (Day, 1990; Peter and Olson, 1996), a product can be defined from the consumer's perspective as a package of benefits and values. Therefore, "people are less concerned with the technical characteristics of a product or service than with the benefits that are gained from buying, using or consuming it" (Hooley and Sanders, 1993). As a result, consumers have inevitably different consumption intentions (Dogan and Erdogan, 2020). Increasingly, marketers realized that airport passengers were purchasing a set of benefits in addition to the items they purchased. Both quality of service and facility investment for airport passengers are important (Park, 2017). In this regard, efforts to subdivide the market into the benefits desired by airport passengers are underway. Market segmentation based on the pursuit of benefits requires that airport passengers pursue benefits in specific product categories. For those seeking benefits, there are several attributes that they should look for. Continuously maintain customer relationships and loyal customers are important. Therefore, positive sensitivity of customers is required (Kim et al., 2020).

A benefit is defined by Park (2018) as a specific outcome that meets a consumer's needs. Airport passengers are expected to benefit from a variety of outcomes, including functional, psychological, and social benefits. Thus, airport passenger pursuit benefits may influence actual selection (Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986). The product, on the other hand, comes with a number of benefits. A study by Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) categorizes the five factors influencing consumer choice behavior: functional benefit, social benefit, emotional benefit, cognitive benefit, and conditional benefit. In contrast, the listed benefits seem too general, potential, and not specific enough for individual use. More comprehensive than a package of five product benefits, Lai (1994) shows a typology of product benefits that might be generated from the possession or consumption of consumers. Our classification of airport passenger benefits was based on Park (2018): where, 1) Functional benefit is associated with consumption-related motives for finding products that address functional problems; 2) Symbolic benefit refers to an internal desire generated by a defined group, role, or ego image; and, 3) Experiential benefit refers to the desire for products that provide sensuous pleasure, diversity, and cognitive stimulation.

2.2 Airport Passenger Perceived Innovativeness (PI)

The latest products in a competitive market always provide features, services, styles, and other attributes in addition to their basic benefits. Among the strategies used by airport marketers to attract passengers is to design products with combinations of certain consumption values. Innovation can be described as the willingness to use technology, as described by Roger (1995). It reflects the willingness of a firm to receive a new concept or an innovative product. In the meantime, perceived innovativeness is also a critical factor that influences adoption behavior, especially for new technologies (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998). Airport passengers' interest in innovative models and technologies is very cautious. Approach and analyze product advertisements (Jan et al., 2019; Scarpi, 2021). Airport passengers' perceived innovativeness refers to the tendency of individuals to embrace innovations in the social system before other members. An innovator is an airport passenger who is open to new experiences and new stimuli.

Among the core elements of Rogers' 1995 theory of innovation diffusion are consumer perceptions of innovativeness, relative advantage, suitability, and practicality to facilitate acceptance of innovation, and complexity to reduce the rate of acceptance (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Based on this study and previous studies (Ali, Krapfel, and LaBahn, 1995; Veryzer, 1998a, 1998b; Robertson, 1967; Waarts, Van Everdingen, and Van Hillegersberg, 2002), we can summarize the sources of innovation into three categories, which include relative advantage, technology capability, and consumption patterns change request. First of all, relative advantage refers to innovation acceptance in terms of passenger perceptions and experiences (Ali et al., 1995; Veryzer, 1998a). Secondly, technology capability means improving the extent of the limitations of the original product through new technologies (Veryzer, 1998b). Thirdly, the request for a change in consumption patterns is that the innovation of products should be influenced by consumers’ thoughts and actions (Robertson, 1967; Waarts et al., 2002). Passengers at highly innovative airports will seek new experiences in purchasing products in order to maximize their experience benefits. They can expect to see a large degree of diversity in their pursuit of diversity. Agarwal and Prasad (1998) explain how perceived innovativeness influences perceptions in the decision to adopt a behavior. Hence, higher perceived innovativeness leads to a heightened sense of diversity, experience, symbolism, and the pursuit of practicality. Thus we suggest that the higher these three angles of airport passenger perception of innovativeness (PI) are, the stronger the positive relationship between airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) and intention of adoption (IA).

2.3 Intention of Adoption (IA)

An individual's behavioral intention is a subjective perception of a specific behavior. And it is actually a determining factor of usage behavior (Yi, Jackson, Park, and Probst, 2006). Understanding airport passengers’ behavioral intention to embrace innovation has become a key issue. Through the decisions made and the resulting personal judgment, airport passengers are encouraged to adopt innovation. In the study, the effect on the behavioral intention of airline passengers was identified. Information demand, trust, and attitude were analyzed (Kim et al., 2017). Due to airport passengers' positive evaluation of benefits, marketers must realize that airport passengers' innovation acceptance intention will be affected by the collection of pursuit benefits (Levitt, 2004). In order to determine how airport passengers view upcoming products, it looks at the process and structure of how airport passengers value the product. Thus, it is very relevant to reflect on the perception of innovativeness, provide airport passengers with expected benefits and study the relationship between airport passenger benefits and adoption intentions. It is imperative to incorporate airport passengers' perceived benefits and intentions for adoption into the assessment of their perceived innovativeness. Based on consumption behavior analysis, we propose a framework for the effect of airport passenger pursuits on the intention of adoption with the mediating role of perceived innovativeness. Airport passenger perception of innovation will certainly affect the relationship between pursuit benefits and adoption intention among airport passengers. Therefore, we develop hypotheses 1, and 2 as follows:

H1: Airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) are positively correlated with adoption intentions (IA).

H2: Airport passenger perceived innovativeness (PI) mediates the effect of airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) on the intention of adoption (IA); the greater the PI, the stronger the positive relationship between PB and IA.

2.4 Personal Need for Structure (PNS)

Personal need for structure (PNS) is initially described as a situationally induced tendency (Kruglanski, 1989, 2004). PNS is a dispositional variable that captures chronic differences between individuals. The PNS scale was created specifically in an attempt to capture, as a chronic individual motive, several aspects of the desire for simple structure (Thompson et al., 2001).

In accordance with (Thompson et al., 2001), the stress associated with encountering new and ill-defined situations is likely to be stronger for those who have a strong PNS. A high PNS limits the flexibility of thinking and creative performance. The reason is the heuristic approach’s decision-making process, which freezes what has already been decided. Thus, higher PNS is associated with a tendency to organize information in simple ways, stereotyping, and a relatively large tendency to form spontaneous trait inferences (Neuberg and Newsom, 1993). The ability to engage in creative behavior is an effective way to respond to the environment before it has been structured. Therefore, individuals who reject the environment before it is structured are less likely to react creatively. Creativity is influenced by perceived innovativeness and personal motivation. Thus, individuals with high PNS characteristics do not like unclear developments. Therefore, there is a lack of motivation to solve the situation and problem before it is structured.

Previous research has suggested that PNS is negatively related to creative performance (Neuberg and Newsom, 1993; Rietzschel, De Dreu, and Nijstad, 2007). Following Rietzschel et al. (2007), people who have a high need for structure are less flexible in their thinking. They are, however, more perseverant, more focused, produce more (a higher level of fluency), and ultimately generate more original ideas than those with low structure requirements. Based on previous empirical evidence, we argue that a higher personal need for structure (PNS) is related to lower levels of airport passenger perceived innovativeness, that is, PNS has a negative effect on PB and PI. Thus, we develop hypothesis 3 as follows:

H3: Personal need for structure (PNS) moderates the effect of airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) on airport passenger perceived innovativeness (PI); the positive effect of PB on PI strengthens as PNS becomes lower.

To sum up, we aim to empirically test the relationship between PB, PI, and IA and further explore the moderating role of personal need for structure between these relationships. According to the integration of the above hypothesis, this study can be described by the following research model (see Fig. 1):

jksaa-31-1-107-g1
Fig. 1. Research model
Download Original Figure

III. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data Collection and Analysis

A questionnaire survey method was adopted to test the above hypotheses. We selected test subjects with experience using innovative facilities at Incheon International Airport, which has representation and advancement and provides sufficient convenience for airport passengers. Samples are collected mainly from young people around the age of 20-30, as they have a higher awareness of accepting new objects.

Through the use of an online survey platform (wjx.cn), all respondents are selected using non-probability sampling. The data collection period is from July 5 to 29, 2022. The final sample comprises 330 participants, and 31 incomplete responses were removed. Therefore, at least 299 responses were used for analysis. Demographic characteristics are analyzed using SPSS statistical analysis of the sample (see Table 1) as follows:

Table 1. Statistical analysis of the sample (n=299)
Division Standardized coefficient %
Gender Male 121 40.5
Female 178 59.5
Age <20 2 0.7
20-29 221 73.9
30-39 59 19.7
40-49 13 4.3
>50 4 1.3
Job Student 223 74.6
Employee 47 15.7
Public official 17 5.7
Professional official 9 3.0
Private business 3 1.0
Total 299 100
Download Excel Table
3.2 Certification and Validation Process

In order to compile measurement items, we reviewed the available literature to compile measurement items. The Airport Passenger Pursuit Benefits (PB) is comprised of 12 items based on Park et al. (1986) such as practicality, convenience, usability; differentiation, superiority, confidence; divertissement, fun, and diversity. Airport passenger perceived innovativeness (PI) is composed of 12 elements developed by Ali et al. (1995) and Waarts et al. (2002). These elements include relative needs, better performance, distinctive characteristics; use of professional technology, latest technology, know-how about technology; using the same techniques in the same situation; usual habits, and appropriate level. The intention of adoption (IA) is measured by 4 items created by Robertson (1967) and Waarts et al. (2002), including acceptance of innovation intent, purchase intent, the first consideration, and intention of publicity surrounding it. Personal need for structure (PNS) is formed by 12 items developed by Neuberg and Newsom (1993). All constructs were measured by the average of the responses, on a 5-point Likert scale (1-“strongly disagree”) and (5-“strongly agree”) for each self-determination need.

IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Measurement Model

The descriptive statistics in Table 2 show basic information on each factor and correlations among these factors.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
PB 3.616 0.548 1
PI 3.822 0.603 0.686** 1
PNS 3.634 0.608 0.864** 0.667** 1
IA 3.812 0.688 0.675** 0.638** 0.744** 1

* p<0.05,

** p<0.01,

*** p<0.001.

Download Excel Table

Analysis of AMOS is subjected to factor analysis and reliability analysis to verify the validity and reliability of the measurement items. As shown in Table 3, the reliability of all reflective measures indicates the scales are internally reliable (Nunnally, 1978). As a result, Cronbach's α is above 0.80 in the measurements of the parameters, indicating good internal consistency and reliability. The results show high internal consistency and a high level of reliability. We also employ the validity test for convergent validity and discriminatory validity. The SFL (standardized factor loading) of all reflective measures is above the 0.70 level and the CR (constructive reliability) is above the 0.70 level. All reflective measures have high AVEs (average variance extracted >0.50). Based on the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, x2=1,645.244 (p=0.00, df=499), RMR= 0.045, GFI=0.856, AGFI=0.833, PGFI=0.851, CFI=0.902, RMSEA=0.043. The model fit criteria used in this study were all found to be acceptable (Hair et al., 2006).

Table 3. Reliability, confirmatory factor analysis
Construct Factor loading Cronbach's alpha CR AVE
PB Functional benefits 0.764
0.784
0.809
0.894 0.807 0.582
Symbolic benefits 0.801
0.897
0.719
0.870 0.842 0.641
Experiential benefits 0.733
0.813
0.792
0.865 0.817 0.598
PI Relative advantage 0.750
0.746
0.795
0.860 0.719 0.561
Technology capability 0.890
0.862
0.758
0.859 0.907 0.764
Consumption pattern 0.720
0.738
0.894 0.819 0.601
PNS Personal need for structure 0.771
0.737
0.744
0.776
0.771
0.786
0.811
0.721
0.712
0.716
0.758
0.717
0.854 0.948 0.605
IA Intention of adoption 0.774
0.817
0.744
0.723
0.863 0.850 0.587
Model fit index x2=1,645.244 (p=0.00,df=499), RMR=0.045, GFI=0.856, AGFI=0.833, PGFI=0.851, CFI=0.902, RMSEA=0.043
Download Excel Table
4.2 Measure Validation

Hypothesis testing is carried out by regression analysis to determine the factors that influence the dependent variable.

The main effect results are listed as shown in Table 4. In order to validate hypothesis 1, we run the first model that taps the first-order airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) including functional, symbolic, and experiential benefits. R2=0.486, F=94.863, sig=0.000, which indicates that the model fits sufficiently well. Functional benefits (β=0.103*, p<0.05), symbolic benefits (β=0.329***, p<0.001), and experiential benefits (β=0.409***, p<0.001) are all positively related to the intention of adoption (IA) which supports H1. Among the results, experiential benefits have the greatest positive effect on the intention of adoption (IA) (Table 5).

Table 4. Verification results of H1
DV IV B S.E β t sig.
IA (Constant) 0.919 0.201 4.575 0.000
PB_F 0.107 0.044 0.103 2.418 0.016
PB_S 0.276 0.046 0.329 6.029 0.000
PB_E 0.414 0.055 0.409 7.495 0.000
R2=0.486; F=94.863; Sig=0.000
Download Excel Table
Table 5. Verification results of H2
DV IV S.E β t Sig.
IA PB 0.054 0.848 15.756 0.000
PI PB 0.047 0.755 16.228 0.000
IA PI 0.051 0.638 14.270 0.000
IA PB 0.070 0.563 8.045 0.000
PI 0.064 0.377 5.934 0.000
Bootstrap for indirect effect :
Indirect effect Boot SE LL95% CI UL95% CI
Effect 0.285 0.056 0.187 0.406
Download Excel Table

Mediation test: To verify hypothesis 2, we assessed the proposed mediation effect in structural modeling analysis. We ran the analysis and found that through airport passenger perceived innovativeness (PI), airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) were significantly associated with intention of adoption (IA). We used the bootstrap procedure analysis by Hayes (2013) as PROCESS Model 4. This method indicates that the indirect effects of the parameter are significant when 0 is positioned outside the confidence interval of 95% of the confidence interval extracted by the bootstrap procedure analysis. Indirect effect=0.285, Boot SE=0.056, LL95% CI=0.187, UL95% CI=0.406. Thus, we conclude that PI indirectly affects the relationship between PB and IA which supports H2.

Moderating effect: To test the proposed moderating effects of personal need for structure (PNS) hypothesis 3, we also used bootstrap procedure analysis by Hayes (2013) as PROCESS Model 7. First, we tested the interaction effect of PB multiplied by PNS, which is related to the PI (β=0.056***, p<0.001). Next, we examined the moderating effect of PNS. Table 6 shows that the result of low group PNS (0.187) is higher than high group PNS (0.172), which indicates that the positive effect of PB on PI strengthens as PNS becomes lower.

Table 6. Verification results of H3
DV IV S.E β t Sig.
PI PB 0.475 0.091 5.224 0.000
PNS 0.289 0.082 3.511 0.001
PB*PNS 0.553 0.056 9.821 0.000
IA PB 0.563 0.070 8.045 0.000
PI 0.377 0.064 5.934 0.000
Bootstrap for moderating effect :
Indirect effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
PNS (low) 0.187 0.058 0.094 0.338
PNS (high) 0.172 0.047 0.094 0.281
Download Excel Table

V. CONCLUSION

This study adopts a consumption behavior view and examines the mediating effect of airport passenger perceived innovativeness (PI) between the effect of airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) and intention of adoption (IA). Furthermore, we examined the moderating effect of personal need for structure (PNS) on the relation between airport passenger pursuit of benefits (PB) and airport passenger perceived innovativeness (PI). Our findings are as follows: Firstly, airport passenger pursuit of benefits which include functional, symbolic, and experiential benefits has a positive effect on the intention of adoption, and the more benefits airport passengers perceive, the higher innovation accepting intention they will generate.

Therefore, firms need to provide airport passengers with value-added services to achieve sustained growth. Secondly, the result suggests that airport passengers’ perception of innovativeness increases the positive effect of airport passenger pursuit benefits on the intention of adoption. This result suggests that, in the meantime, the formation of attitudes toward a new product is dependent on how innovative the product is judged to be in meeting airport passenger needs. Thirdly, looking at the consistency related to prediction, a high PNS level did not have a positive effect on perceived innovativeness. It can be interpreted that a low PNS level improves people’s activity and creativity, and has a positive effect on perceived innovativeness.

The purpose of this study is to identify innovative service patterns and frameworks for airport passengers’ evaluation of innovative facilities at airports. Innovative airport services and the four main concepts of this study are very closely related. First, innovation based on technological development can satisfy the various needs of airport passengers. Innovation is a concept that can flexibly respond to rapidly changing airport passenger needs. Second, the interests pursued by airport passengers have a virtuous circle relationship with the development of technology. As a result, airport passengers’ evaluations of newly introduced products interact with the development of innovative service patterns. Third, airport passengers compare with other services in terms of expectations for innovative services, use of value, and airport passenger benefits.

After all, the competitiveness of innovative services depends on whether they can provide high value for airport passengers.

The academic implications of this research show that firstly, from the airport passenger's perspective, the degree of airport services has a positive impact on the intention of adoption. Secondly, the psychological processes of the formation of perceived innovation features influence airport passenger attitudes and intention of adoption. This suggests that it is imperative to take psychological variables meaningful. Thirdly, this study imports the PNS concepts in previous studies and combines concepts mainly used in airport passenger behavior research and innovation acceptance. Furthermore, we expand the range of basic research into explanatory power through empirical analysis.

This research should have practical implications for management. The fact that airport passengers are increasingly developing their own personalities means that product attributes are becoming more and more sophisticated in order to satisfy their needs. An exact understanding of the relationship between product properties and product attributes, based on airport passengers’ personal characteristics, is essential to establishing an effective product strategy. As a result of differences in the importance of benefits sought by the airport passenger, the firm would be able to develop a new product development strategy that targets airport passengers with specific innovative characteristics.

During the pandemic, innovative services made our lives a lot more convenient. After the post-pandemic, airport passengers accustomed to using omnichannel services will find more innovative services. Retailers are already taking their omnichannel strategy very seriously. Airport innovative services require a rethinking of marketing strategy. This study has implications for establishing a more effective marketing strategy.

Finally, this research model fails to consider some factors (e.g. characteristics of airport passengers’ attributes or the market environment). The model can be applied to other consumer groups in the future. In addition, additional consideration can be given to the uniqueness of the market segment in order to make it more general. The concept of acceptance and diffusion of innovation should be included in comparison research.

Acknowledgement

The present Research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2022.

References

1.

Agarwal, R., and Prasad, J., “A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology”, Information Systems Research, 9(2), 1998, pp.204-215.

2.

Ali, A. A., Krapfel, R., and LaBahn, D., “Product innovativeness and entry strategy: Impact on cycle time and break-even time”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(1), 1995, pp.54-69.

3.

Day, G. S., “Market Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value”, Free Press, New York, 1990.

4.

Dogan, M., and Erdogan, B. Z., “Effects of congruence between individuals’ and hotel commercials’ construal levels on purchase ontentions”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 29(8), 2020, pp.987-1007.

5.

Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., Hughes, D. E., Jones, E., “Motivating sales people to sell new products: The relative influence of attitudes, subjective norms, and self-efficacy”, Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 2010, pp.61-76.

6.

Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., and Black, W., “Multivariate Data Analysis”, 6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006.

7.

Hayes, A. F., “Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach”, The Guilford Press, New York, 2013.

8.

Hooley, G. J., and Saunders, J., “Competitive Positioning: The Key to Marketing Strategy”, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1993.

9.

Jan, M. T., Jager, J. W. de, Ameziane, A. M., and Sultan, N., “Applying technology acceptance model to investigate the use of smartphone advertising in Malaysia”, Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 11(1), 2019, pp.202-210.

10.

Kim, J. H., Han, S. Y., and Jin, S. H., “A study on airline love mark and relation continuing intention”, Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics, 28(4), 2020, pp.63-68.

11.

Kim, Y. S., and Park, J. W. “The inflence of EWOM on passengers’ behavioral intentions”, Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics, 25(2), 2017, pp.39-47.

12.

Kruglanski, A. W., “The psychology of being ‘right’: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition,” Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 1989, pp.395-409.

13.

Kruglanski, A. W., “The Psychology of Closed Mindedness”, Psychology Press, New York, 2004.

14.

Lai, A., “Consumption schemata: Their effects on decision-making,” Advances in Consumer Research, 21(1), 1994, pp.489-494.

15.

Levitt, T., “Marketing Myopia”, Harvard Business Review, 82(7/8), 2004, pp.138-149.

16.

Lin, J. C. C., and Lu, H., “Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site”, International Journal of Information Management, 20(3), 2000, pp. 197-208.

17.

Lu, J., Yao, J. E., and Yu, C. S., “Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless internet services via mobile technology”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 2005, pp.245-268.

18.

Neely, A., “Exploring the financial consequences of the servitization of manufacturing”, Operations Management Research, 1, 2008, pp.103-118.

19.

Neuberg, S. L., and Newsom, J. T., “Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 1993, pp.113-131.

20.

Nunnally J. C., “Psychometric Theory”, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.

21.

Park, C. S., “Principles of Marketing”, 6th ed., Bobmunsa, Paju, Gyeonggi-do, 2018.

22.

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., and MacInnis, D. J., “Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 1986, pp.135-145.

23.

Park, H. S., Kim, H. Y., Lee, J. Y., and Lee, S. M., “A study on the influence of airport environment on airport users’ emotions: Focused on Incheon International Airport”, Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics, 25(4), 2017, pp.61-75.

24.

Peter, J. P., and Olson, J. C., “Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy”, 4th ed., Irwin McGrawHill, Homewood, IL, 1996.

25.

Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K. W., and Nijstad, B. A., “Personal need for structure and creative performance: The moderating influence of fear of invalidity”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 2007, pp.855-866.

26.

Robertson, T. S., “The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation”, Journal of Marketing, 31(1), 1967, pp.14-19.

27.

Rogers, E. M., “Diffusion of Innovations”, 4th ed., Free Press, New York, 1995.

28.

Rogers, E. M., Shoemaker, F. F., “Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach”, Free Press, New York, 1971.

29.

Scarpi, D., “A construal-level approach to hedonic and utilitarian shopping orientation”, Marketing Letters, 32(2), 2021, pp.261-271.

30.

Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., and Gross, B. L., “Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values”, Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 1991, pp.159-170.

31.

Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., Parker, K. C. H., and Moskowitz, G. B., “The personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: Historical perspectives, current applications, and future directions”, In G. B. Moskowitz (ed.), Cognitive Social Psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2001.

32.

Veryzer, R. W., “Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new products”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 1998a, pp.136-150.

33.

Veryzer, R. W., “Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 1998b, pp.304-321.

34.

Waarts, E., van Everdingen, Y. M., and van Hillegersberg, J., “The dynamics of factors affecting the adoption of innovations”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(6), 2002, pp.412-423.

35.

Yi, M. Y., Jackson, J. D., Park, J. S., and Probst, J. C., “Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view”, Information and Management, 43(3), 2006, pp.350-363.