ruth m. stock, ph.d., professor of marketing & hr management

July 30, 2014 | TU Darmstadt & MIT Sloan School of Management | OUI Conference 2014 | Stock, von Hippel, and Schnarr

1

Ruth M. Stock, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing & HR ManagementDarmstadt University of Technology, Germany

Eric von Hippel, Ph.D., Professor of Management of Innovation and Engineering SystemsMIT Sloan School of Management, USA

Lennart Schnarr, Ph.D. CandidateDarmstadt University of Technology, Germany

—12th Annual Open and User Innovation Conference—Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA

THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON CONSUMERS’ INNOVATION ACTIVITIES IN DIFFERENT INNOVATION STAGES


2

Relevance: Practical Perspective

IdeaIdea PrototypeDiffusion- commercially- peer-to-peer

User Innovation & Diffusion Process

“I don’t have a vivid imagination!”

“I find it very difficult to get down to work to implement my ideas!”

“I don’t like to approach people and talk to them!”

Why do consumers innovate and diffuse? How can we increase levels of individual innovativeness and diffusion?


3

Relevance: Academic Perspective

- Prior research has identified many factors likely to be associated with successful completion of innovation and diffusion tasks such as ...

- social ties and climate for innovation (Amabile et al.

1996; Perry-Smith 2006; Scott and Bruce 1994),- technical skills, gender, and community membership

(Lüthje, Herstatt, and von Hippel 2005; Ogawa and Pongtanalert 2013; von Hippel, de Jong, and Flowers 2012; von Hippel, Ogawa, and de Jong 2011),

- and, in the case of entrepreneurship, knowledge, experience, and skills of the founder (Chandler and

Jansen, 1992; Song et al. 2008).

- Research has also shown that personality traits significantly affect vocational choices, creative behaviors in the workplace, and individual job performance (e.g., Barrick and Mount 1991; Feist 1998; Lounsbury et al. 2012; Zhao and Seibert 2006).

However, little is known about the impact of personality on innovation and diffusion tasks carried out by individual consumers.


4

Theoretical Basis

Five Factor Model of Personality (“Big Five”)

Five dimensions that describe “the most important ways in which individuals differ in their enduring emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational styles.”

(McCrae and John 1992, p. 175)

Openness to experience

Being ...

imaginativecuriousuntraditionalreflectivecreativeoriginal

Extraversion

Being ...

gregariousassertiveactiveenergetic enthusiastictalkative

Conscientious-ness

Being ...

persistenthardworkingorganizedplanfuldutifulreliable

Agreeableness

Being ...

friendlyforgivingtolerantaltruisticcooperativetrusting

Neuroticism

Being ...

nervousworryinganxiousunstabledepressedhostile

Sources: Barrick and Mount 1991; Costa and McCrae 1992; Feist 1998; McCrae and John 1992; Zhao and Seibert 2006.


5

Study Framework

Big Five

Resources,Demographics

Idea(no/ yes)

Prototype(no/ yes)

Diffusion Attempt(no/ yes, non-

commercially/ yes, commercially)


6

Data Analysis Strategy

UI, attempted p2p diffusion

UI, attempted commercial diffusion

Sample Composition

100 %

60.8 %

36.1 %

Innovation ProcessStage 1:Ideation

Stage 2:Prototyping

Stage 3:DiffusionAttempt

19.6 %

Consumers without idea

Consumers with idea, not prototyped

UI, no attempts to diffuse

12.8 %

Stage 0:No Idea

full sample:n = 546

Notes: UI = user innovator; p2p= peer-to-peer


7

Results (1/3):Effect of Personality on Having an Idea (Stage 1)

Baseline model Main Effects

Control Variables

Parental status .017 (.119) .065 (.124)

Technical background .755 (.210)*** .866 (.221)***

Inspiring social environment .289 (.080)*** .219 (.084)**

Available time for ideation .160 (.070)* .134 (.073)†

Frequency of unmet needs .468 (.075)*** .456 (.079)***

Big Five

Openness to experience .457 (.134)**

Extraversion .224 (.138)

Conscientiousness -.142 (.144)

Agreeableness -.012 (.153)

Neuroticism -.157 (.119)

Constant -3.420 (.460)*** -5.040 (1.403)***

Model Fit

χ² 115.921*** (df=5); 137.017*** (df = 10)

Pseudo R² .262 .303

Notes: n = 541; std. errors in brackets. † p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; df = degrees of freedom.


8

Results (2/3):Effect of Personality on Building a Prototype (Stage 2)

Baseline Model Main EffectsControl Variables

Gender 1.378 (.312)*** 1.374 (.326)***

Technical background .238 (.295) .061 (.309)

Skills suited to prototype specific idea

.528 (.108)*** .563 (.114)***

Capacity in life to prototype -.040 (.112) .035 (.120)

Intensity of need .622 (.094)*** .630 (.098)***

Big Five

Openness to experience .033 (.186)

Extraversion -.715 (.208)**

Conscientiousness .282 (.202)

Agreeableness -.045 (.221)

Neuroticism -.024 (.175)

Constant -6.028 (.918)*** -4.323 (2.013)*

Model Fit

χ² 126.583*** (df=5) 141.021*** (df=10)

Pseudo R² .433 .473

Notes: n = 327; std. errors in brackets. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; df = degrees of freedom.


9

Results (3/3):Effect of Personality on Diffusion Attempts (Stage 3)

Peer-to-peer Commercial Baseline Model Main Effects Baseline Model Main EffectsControl Variables

Perceived capabilities to diffuse

.055 (.130) .121 (.136) .311 (.118)** .374 (.133)**

Available time for diffusion -.090 (.127) -.103 (.127) -.074 (.111) -.103 (.117)

Perceived utility for others .249 (.117)* .266 (.123)* .357 (.104)** .342 (.111)**

Likely helpfulness to others .275 (.152)† .335 (.161)* .413 (.138)** .493 (.156)**

Big Five Openness to experience -.067 (.273) -.352 (.259)

Extraversion -.355 (.279) -.054 (.261)

Conscientiousness -.179 (.309) .761 (.308)*

Agreeableness .247 (.323) -.175 (.288)

Neuroticism .113 (.262) .557 (.235)*

Constant -3.362 (1.139)** -2.670 (2.823) -5.302 (1.097)*** -8.386 (2.524)**

Model Fit

χ² 34.778*** (df=8, Baseline Model) and 53.151*** (df=18, Main Effects)

Pseudo R² .189 (Baseline Model) and .276 (Main Effects)

Notes: n = 192; the base category is Users with an Idea—prototyped, but no diffusion attempts; standard errors in brackets; † p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; df = degrees of freedom.


10

Implications for Practice and Policymaking

Firms and policymakers should seek to change the nature of

consumer innovation tasks ...

- ... by considering the personality traits required to

successfully complete each stage of the innovation process:

• Creativity tools to assist ideation

• Easy to use design programs and 3D-printers to

prototype

• Internet platforms to diffuse and advertise

- ... from a primarily solitary one into a collaborative effort where

individuals collectively have all the personality traits needed to

successfully complete all three innovation stages.


11

Implications for Academic Research

Our study ...

… is a first-of-type study to explore links between personality traits and successful accomplishment of three basic innovation process stages by individual consumers.

… is the first in user innovation research which builds on the Five Factor Model of personality, which appears to be fruitful for this line of research.

Future research should ...

… be extended to more fine-grained traits and innovation tasks.

… develop and test hypotheses about possible interaction with contextual factors.


12

Thank you for your attention!

Ruth M. Stock, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing & HR ManagementDarmstadt University of Technology, Germany

Eric von Hippel, Ph.D., Professor of Management of Innovation and Engineering SystemsMIT Sloan School of Management, USA

Lennart Schnarr, Ph.D. CandidateDarmstadt University of Technology, Germany

—12th Annual Open and User Innovation Conference—Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA

THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON CONSUMERS’ INNOVATION ACTIVITIES IN DIFFERENT INNOVATION STAGES


13

Examples of New Products Developed by Users in the Sample

Category Example

Medical I am colorblind. I developed an iPhone camera app that identifies the colors of objects in a scene, and codes them for easy recognition.

Household I created a rotating and removable tray for a refrigerator to replace conventional shelves; it makes it easier to store and access items.

Garden I created a rain-protected gutter filled with table salt to keep snails away from my vegetable garden without killing them.

Parenting I created a new game to make learning multiplication tables into enjoyable play for my children.

Clothing I created a cloth expansion panel to enable me to fasten my coat while wearing a baby carrier underneath. Helps keep me and my baby warm. Adapts to all conventional zippers.

Sports equipment

I added arm cranks to my bicycle in order to supplement leg power when high effort is needed.


14

Sample Demographics (1/2)

Consumers without an idea

(n = 214)

Consumers with an idea, not prototyped

(n = 135)

Consumers with an idea, prototyped

(n = 197)Gender [%]

male 43.0 49.3 78.8female 57.0 50.7 21.2

Mean age [years] 37.43 32.02 43.34Age classes [%]

≤24 years 23.8 27.9 10.225-34 years 30.4 44.9 21.835-44 years 11.7 11.8 16.245-54 years 18.7 6.6 30.055-64 years 8.9 5.1 13.265+ years 6.5 3.7 8.6

Available monthly income [$] <751 24.4 22.8 14.9751-1500 18.3 26.5 17.91501-2000 11.3 16.2 10.82001-3000 19.2 16.9 19.93001-5000 16.9 10.3 19.05001-8000 7.0 3.7 13.8>8000 2.8 3.7 4.1


15

Sample Demographics (2/2)

Consumers without an

idea(n = 214)

Consumers with an idea, not prototyped

(n = 135)

Consumers with an idea, prototyped

(n = 197)Professional background [%] Computer Science/Natural Science/Technology 27.1 39.7 48.7

Construction/Manufacturing/Crafts 7.0 8.1 14.2

Sales/Services/Trade 29.5 15.4 10.2

Administration/Justice 8.8 6.7 3.0

Health/Social/Teaching 12.6 16.1 7.1

Arts/Culture/Media 5.2 6.6 4.1

Other 9.8 7.4 12.7

Average working experience [years]

14.30 9.62 20.26

Highest educational background [%]

lower than High School degree 34.6 20.3 24.9High School degree 25.6 33.8 24.9University degree/College degree

36.5 44.4 47.6

Ph.D. 3.3 1.5 2.6


16

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Among Refined Measures—Ideation Stage

Notes: n = 542; diagonal elements in parentheses are values of Cronbach’s alpha; † p<.10, p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001,a = dummy variable.

Variables M S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Openness to experience 4.70 .86 (.75)

2 Extraversion 4.83 .84 .23*** (.83)

3 Conscientiousness 5.05 .81 .17*** .28*** (.79)

4 Agreeableness 5.18 .73 .18*** .13** .33*** (.76)

5 Neuroticism 2.77 .98 -.16*** -.33*** -.36*** -.28*** (.88)

6 Parental status .50 .86 -.05 -.05 .10* .00 -.04 (−)

7 Technical backgrounda .38 .49 − − − − − − (−)

8 Inspiring social environment 4.20 1.37 .27*** .21*** .13** .01 -.06 -.02 − (.79)

9 Available time for ideation 3.90 1.50 .19*** -.03 -.02 -.03 -.02 -.00 − .19*** (.92)

10 Frequency of unmet needs 3.94 1.50 .26*** .09* .02 -.07† .05 .05 − .37*** .17*** (−)


17

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Among Refined Measures—Prototyping Stage

Notes: n = 326; diagonal elements in parentheses are values of Cronbach’s alpha; † p<.10, p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001,a = dummy variable.

Variables M S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


2 Extraversion 4.91 .79 .20*** (.79)

3 Conscientiousness 5.06 .81 .18** .23*** (.78)

4 Agreeableness 5.18 .70 .18** .15** .34*** (.73)

5 Neuroticism 2.71 .97 -.09† -.29*** -.38*** -.30*** (.88)

6. Gendera .68 .47 − − − − − (−)

7 Technical backgrounda .45 .50 − − − − − − (−)

8 Skills suited to prototype specific idea 5.04 1.45 .10† .05 .12* .05 -.10† − − (.76)

9 Capacity in life to prototype 5.13 1.28 .20*** .23*** .17** .06 -.19** − − .14* (.87)

10 Intensity of need 4.85 1.70 .14* .05 .16** .03 -.08 − − .23*** .07 (−)


18

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations Among Refined Measures—Diffusion Stage

Notes: n = 193; diagonal elements in parentheses are values of Cronbach’s alpha; † p<.10, p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

Variables M S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


2 Extraversion 4.81 .82 .27*** (.80)

3 Conscientiousness 5.14 .79 .22** .31*** (.78)

4 Agreeableness 5.16 .73 .21** .16* .40*** (.77)

5 Neuroticism 2.67 .96 -.15* -.35*** -.39*** -.36*** (.88)

6 Perceived capabilities to diffuse 4.23 1.62 .20** .22** .13† -.03 -.11 (−)

7 Available time for diffusion 3.97 1.67 -.03 .01 -.01 -.06 -.01 .22** (−)

8 Perceived utility for others 4.64 1.82 .11 .10 .10 .08 .07 .15* .15* (−)

9 Likely helpfulness to others 5.54 1.41 .21** .19* .07 .04 -.08 .04 .15* .05 (−)


19

Construct Measurement (1/5)

Big Five (ipip.ori.org/):

Openness to Experience (1 = very inaccurate … 7 = very accurate) Enjoy hearing new ideas. Believe in the importance of art. Have a vivid imagination. Tend to vote for liberal political candidates. Carry the conversation to a higher level. Do not like art. RAm not interested in abstract ideas. R

Do not enjoy going to art museums. RAvoid philosophical discussions. RTend to vote for conservative political candidates. R

Extraversion (1 = very inaccurate … 7 = very accurate)Feel comfortable around people.Make friends easily.

Am skilled in handling social situations. Am the life of the party. Know how to captivate people. Keep in the background. RDon't like to draw attention to myself. R

Have little to say. R Would describe my experiences as somewhat dull. R Don't talk a lot. R


20



Conscientiousness (1 = very inaccurate … 7 = very accurate) Am always prepared. Pay attention to details.

Make plans and stick to them.Carry out my plans.

Get chores done right away.Waste my time. R

Do just enough work to get by. RFind it difficult to get down to work. R

Don't see things through. R Shirk my duties. R

Agreeableness (1 = very inaccurate … 7 = very accurate) Have a good word for everyone.

Believe that others have good intentions.

Respect others.

Accept people as they are.

Make people feel at ease. Have a sharp tongue. R Cut others to pieces. R Suspect hidden motives in others. R Get back at others. R Insult people. R


21



Neuroticism (1 = very inaccurate … 7 = very accurate)Often feel blue.Dislike myself.

Panic easily. Am often down in the dumps.

Have frequent mood swings.Feel comfortable with myself. R

Rarely get irritated. R Am very pleased with myself. R Seldom feel blue. R Am not easily bothered by things. R

Ctrls:

Parental status Number of children currently living in the household.

Technical background (0 = no, 1 = yes) Dummy variable for those with a professional background in technology, computer or natural science.

Inspiring social environment (self-developed; 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree) I have access to people ... ... who regularly create new ideas. ... who encourage to come up with new ideas.

Available time for ideation (adapted from Scott and Bruce 1994; 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree) In my leisure, there is adequate time available to pursue creative ideas. I have sufficient time to generate new ideas if I like to.


22


Ctrls:

Frequency of unmet needs (self-developed; 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree) I frequently have needs which are not covered by the products currently offered on the market.

Gender (0 = female; 1 = male) Dummy variable

Skills suited to prototype specific idea (self-developed; 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree) When I would start/started to prototype, I believe/-d … to have the skills necessary to develop my product solution. … that learning how to develop my product solution would be easy for me.

Capacity in life to prototype (adapted from Scott and Bruce 1994; 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree) My life situation allows me to be flexible and to continually adapt to change. My life situation allows me to be open and responsive to change.

Intensity of need (self-developed; 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree) I have a strong need for this product solution/I really need this product solution.

Available time for diffusion (self-developed; 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree)

When I would start/started to diffuse, I believe/-d to have sufficient time to diffuse my new product solution.

Perceived capabilities to diffuse (self-developed; 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree)

When I would start/started to diffuse, I believe/-d to have the skills necessary to diffuse my product solution.

Utility for others (self-developed; 1 = … is valuable to few, 7 = … is valuable to nearly all) The new product solution … … is valuable to few. vs. … is valuable to nearly all.


23


Ctrls:

Likely helpfulness for others (self-developed: 1 = totally disagree … 7 = totally agree)

From the diffusion of my solution, I would expect a benefit in terms of helping others by supplying my solution.

Dependent variables:

Idea (0 = no; 1 = yes)Consumer generated at least one idea for a new product solution or a modification of existing product solutions within the past five years which would be useful for own use or the use of close relatives.

Prototype (0 = no; 1 = yes) At least one idea was realized/prototyped for personal use or the use of close relatives.

Attempted Diffusion (0 = no; 1 = yes, non-commercially (peer-to-peer); 2 = yes, commercially) Attempt has been made to actively diffuse the innovation.

Successful Diffusion (0 = no; 1 = yes)

Innovation was adopted by other users and/or firms (If the prototype has been developed for a close relative or friend, this person was not meant here).


24

References (1/2)

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. The

Academy of Management Journal 39 (5), 1154-84.

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel

Psychology 44 (1), 1-26.

Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E., 1992. The founder's self-assessed competence and venture performance. Journal of

Business Venturing 7, 223-36.

Costa, P.T., Jr., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory

(NEO-FFI) manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.

Feist, G.J., 1998. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology

Review 2 (4), 290-309. Journal of Individual Differences 29 (1), 11-6.

Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Lounsbury, J.W., Foster, N., Patel, H., Carmody, P., Gibson, L.W., Stairs, D.R., 2012. An investigation of the personality

traits of scientists versus nonscientists and their relationship with career satisfaction. R&D Management 42 (1), 47-

59.

Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., von Hippel, E., 2005. User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking.

Research Policy 34, 951-65.

McCrae, R.R., John, O. P., 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60,

175-215.

Ogawa, S., Piller, F.T., 2006. Reducing the risks of new product development. Sloan Management Review 47 (1), 189-

204.

Ogawa, S., Pongtanalert, K., 2013. Exploring characteristics and motives of consumer innovators: Community innovators

vs. independent innovators. Research Technology Management 56 (3), 41-8.


25

References (2/2)

Perry-Smith, J.E., 2006. Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of

Management Journal 49 (1), 85-101.

Scott, S.G., Bruce, R.A., 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the

workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37 (3), 580-607.

Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., van der Bij, H., Halman, J.I.M., 2008. Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Product Innovation Management 28, 7-27.

von Hippel, E., de Jong, J.P.J., Flowers, S., 2012. Comparing business and household sector innovation in consumer

products: Findings from a representative study in the UK. Management Science 58 (9), 1669-81.

von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., de Jong, J.P.J., 2011. The age of the consumer-innovator, MIT Sloan Management Review

53 (1), 27-35.

Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., 2006. The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review.

Journal of Applied Psychology 2, 259-71.

ruth m. stock, ph.d., professor of marketing & hr management

Documents

schnarr nr

professor of management

innovation amabile

diffusion tasks

individual consumers

usa lennart schnarr

individual job performance

germany eric