Culture’s Influence on Innovation Adoption

A global study of managers’ adoption intention of telecom innovations

Ruud T. Frambach, Hester van Herk & Manoj H. Agarwal

Ruud T. Frambach is professor of marketing and Hester van Herk is assistant professor of

marketing at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Manoj H. Agarwal is

associate professor of marketing at Binghamton University, State University of New York

(SUNY), United States. The authors contributed equally to the research.

Correspondence: Ruud T. Frambach, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics

and Business Administration (2E-33), De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The

Netherlands. Phone +31 20 5986002; Fax +31 20 5986005; Email rframbach@feweb.vu.nl

1
 Culture’s Influence on Innovation Adoption

A global study of managers’ adoption intention of telecom innovations

Abstract

Diffusion patterns of products are known to differ significantly between countries. Studies

that mainly focused on consumer contexts in European countries show that culture has a

significant effect on innovation diffusion and consumer innovativeness. In the present

research we focus on adoption intentions of individual managers operating in a business-to-

business context, for two telecommunication innovations. We expect rational motives to drive

the adoption process more than national-cultural values. The study contains data from more

than 3,200 respondents in 22 countries worldwide, including less developed countries. Results

reveal that individual-level variables and economic characteristics of a country drive adoption

more than national culture. Moreover, this effect seems stronger for the relatively newer and

more expensive innovation.

Search keywords: international adoption; innovation; national culture; managers; worldwide

survey

2
1. Introduction

Marketing new products is one of the major sources for organizational growth and

success (Cardozo et al. 1993). Consequently, understanding the drivers of new product

acceptance in the marketplace has received considerable attention in the literature (Rogers

1995). As many firms operate in an international market context, the need for understanding

the antecedents of innovation adoption across nations becomes increasingly important.

Previous research in this respect focused primarily on explaining how innovation diffusion

processes differ between countries in Europe (Gatignon, Eliashberg and Robertson 1989,

Helsen, Jedidi and DeSarbo 1993, Humar, Ganesh and Echambadi 1998, Tellis, Stremersch

and Yin 2003), in Japan, Horea, Taiwan and the United States (Takada and Jain 1991) or

across countries on a global scale (Dekimpe, Parker and Sarvary 2000). These studies show

that both culture and economic factors significantly affect the take-off and diffusion process

of new products in consumer markets. As the innovation diffusion studies use data at an

aggregate level (annual sales data), they do not provide insight into the determinants of

individual level adoption decisions. Research on the influence of country characteristics on

innovation adoption is still relatively scarce.

Steenkamp, ter Hofstede and Wedel (1999) observed that within countries of the

European Union national-cultural antecedents influence individual consumers’ innovativeness

(referring to consumers’ propensity to adopt innovations in general). As prior research

suggests that consumer adoption of innovations is affected by consumer characteristics and

values (Gatignon and Robertson 1991) as well as social context (Fisher and Price 1992), the

influence of national-cultural variables on consumer adoption of innovations is to be expected

(Takada and Jain 1991). However, it may be less clear to what extent such effects will hold in

a business-to-business market. It has been argued that innovation adoption in such markets

may differ significantly from consumer adoption (Robertson and Gatignon 1986, Day and

3
Herbig 1990), for multiple reasons. First, individuals that consider adopting an innovation

motivated by business objectives are likely to be affected by more rational, less self-related

antecedents (e.g., Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek 1973). This would suggest that factors other

than culture predominantly affect adoption decisions. Second, different studies suggest that

managers across countries, and accordingly across different cultures, tend to show similar

behavior as opposed to consumers (e.g., Helley, Whatley and Wortley 1987).

Based on the above, the objective of this paper is to shed more light on the role of

culture on innovation adoption by managers across different countries. In particular, we aim to

understand the influence of country characteristics, and more specifically that of culture,

relative to that of variables related to the individual business manager on his/her innovation

adoption intention. The research adopts a global approach, studying adoption intention by

managers worldwide. Therefore, the main contribution of this study is twofold. First, unlike

diffusion studies that have incorporated the effect of culture in primarily consumer contexts,

we develop a conceptual framework on its relative influence on innovation adoption intention

by individuals in a business-to-business market (focusing on managers as important decision

makers). Although previous research quite unambiguously has shown that “culture matters”

within consumer innovation adoption contexts, the influence of national culture on adoption

intention in business markets is not clear (e.g., Shane 1993). Scholars therefore repeatedly

voiced the necessity for further research on this topic (e.g., Takada and Jain 1991, Dawar and

Parker 1994). Moreover, by investigating to what extent managers constitute a homogeneous

segment of innovation adopters across cultures, we contribute to the called for identification

of potential cross-national segments (Douglas and Craig 1992, Dawar and Parker 1994).

Obviously, the latter is higly relevant to practitioners in international marketing. Second, this

is the first study on this issue involving countries from all continents including Africa and

South America. The data provides us information on managerial adoption intention of telecom

4
innovations by more than 3,200 managers from 22 different countries within all continents.

The richness of these data helps us to assess the effect of national-cultural dimensions in

addition to individual determinants of innovation adoption intention that have been validated

in adoption research. The comprehensiveness of this approach complements prior studies that

focused primarily on drivers of innovativeness and innovation diffusion processes in selected

consumer markets. We focus on the adoption intention of two telecommunication innovations.

The telecommunications industry is a highly dynamic one, inducing numerous innovations

with substantial impact on business operations (see e.g., Dekimpe, Parker and Sarvary 1998,

Sundqvist, Frank and Puumalainen 2003).

This paper is organized as follows. First, we present the conceptual framework of the

study and formulate research hypotheses. Second, the method of the study is outlined

followed by the research results. Finally, we discuss the findings of our study as well as its

implications.

2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

In this study, we consider the intention of individuals operating in a business-to-business

context to adopt telecommunication innovations. The type of adoption decision considered

here resembles innovation decisions that consumers often are faced with when deciding to

adopt a new product for personal use. The main difference, however, is that managers are

likely to employ more business oriented motives in their decision making process compared to

consumers as their organizational role is likely to trigger a business dominated cognitive

schema. Based on both adoption theory and organizational behavior theory, we propose that

this has two major implications for conceptualizing individual adoption intention in an

international context. First, the perceived characteristics of an innovation identified as key

drivers of an individual’s inclination to adopt an innovation (Rogers 1995) will be especially

5
relevant in the context of managers considering innovation adoption. Most importantly, the

perceived relative advantage or usefulness of the new product can be expected to be a

particularly important driver of adoption when business motives are primary (Robinson 1990).

Also the degree to which the innovation satisfies the particular needs of the potential adopter

can be expected to especially affect managerial adoption given the likelihood of more rational

motives underlying the decision making process. This has been referred to as the degree of

compatibility of the innovation (see e.g., Holak 1988). Second, managers in different

countries operate in different cultural contexts. In the context of consumers’ propensity to

adopt an innovation, the cultural context has indeed been found to play a significant role

(Steenkamp, ter Hofstede and Wedel 1999). With respect to its effect on adoption decisions in

a business-to-business context, theory does not provide us with unambiguous answers. On the

one hand, it has been argued that culture will have little effect on managerial decisions.

Individuals adopting innovations in the interest of an organization are accountable for their

decision by that organization. Therefore, such decision making processes tend to be more of a

rational nature than consumer decision making (e.g., Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek 1973).

Organizations will be more likely to adopt innovations if they can enhance the effectiveness

and/or efficiency of their activities. As organizational adopters are more ‘forced to adopt

industrial attitudes and behaviors’ (Helley, Whatley and Worthley 1987, p. 18), cultural

variables can be expected to play a less dominating role than in the context of international

consumer adoption of innovations. This is known as the ‘convergence hypothesis’ (Helley,

Whatley and Worthley 1987) and has been empirically confirmed by studies of organizational

buying behavior (Douglas and Craig 1992, p. 298; Tan 2002). On the other hand, institutional

theory suggests that (members of) organizations are influenced by the societies in which they

operate (Granovetter 1985), which implies that culture would have an effect on innovative

behavior of organizational members. We posit that both innovation characteristics and to

6
some extent national culture can affect adoption decisions of managers. Accordingly, our

approach includes information at the country as well as individual respondent level. In

addition, we control for variables that may account for unobserved heterogeneity, including

economic variables at the country-level and adopter characteristics at the individual level.

Finally, we will explore some interactions that are likely such as between perceived

innovation characteristics and adopter characteristics and economic variables, respectively.

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework of our study. Next, we will elaborate on the

relationships shown in the Figure by formulating our research hypotheses.

[Insert Figure 1 here]

2.1 The influence of culture on innovation adoption intention

Culture is defined following Hofstede (1980) as “the collective programming of the mind

which distinguishes the members of one human group from another … [and] includes systems

of values” (Hofstede 1980, p. 25). Hofstede (1980, 2001) distinguishes four main culture

dimensions; power distance, masculinity, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance. These

dimensions are the most widely accepted and used representations of national culture among

scholars in marketing (Nakata and Sivakumar 2001) and therefore will also be employed in

the present research. The power distance within a country refers to the degree to which

society is of a hierarchical structure and nature. Masculinity refers to the extent that the

culture of a country is characterized by factors that relate to assertion and performance.

Individualism refers to the extent that individuals make decisions independent from others.

Finally, uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree in which people in a country feel

uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity.

7
 Power Distance. The behavior of individuals within countries with high levels of

power distance is affected by their relative social standing. Individuals with higher social

status have more power, and consequently have the authority to influence or determine the

behaviors of lower ranked individuals. In general, this would imply that in countries that are

characterized by a high level of power distance, individuals would be less inclined to adopt

new ideas and products. Their decision would largely be controlled and determined by

persons with higher formal and/or social status. Accordingly, studying the diffusion of

consumer products in 19 wealthier countries, Yaveroglu and Donthu (2002) found a negative

effect of power distance on consumers’ intention to innovate.

In business markets, however, the decision-makers concern the individuals that are in

control themselves within organizations and therefore have the power to decide whether to

adopt new ideas or products or not. As Nakata and Sivakumar (2001) note: “Managers in

higher power distance societies use power, prestige and other resources to create and reinforce

social inequality, concentrating authority and decision-making in the upper echelons and

among specialists (Hofstede 1980, p. 133-136)”. Moreover, their relatively powerful position

will positively affect their felt locus of control (Shapero 1975). In addition to their motivation

to reinforce their relative status, this will stimulate managers to act according to their own

judgement. To the extent that adopting innovations will reinforce their position, as can be the

case with telecom innovations (Maitland 1999), these arguments indicate that managers

operating within countries that score highly on power distance will be more inclined to adopt

the innovation than managers in countries with lower power distance. We therefore

hypothesize:

H1: The extent to which a country is characterized by a higher degree of power distance will have

a positive effect on a manager’s intention to adopt an innovation.

8
 Masculinity and individualism. Masculinity refers to the extent that the culture of a

country is characterized by factors that relate to assertiveness (such as ambition, performance,

and material success) rather than nurturance (importance of people, the environment, helping

others, equality)(Hofstede 1980). Within countries that are characterized by a high degree of

individualism, consumers tend to initiate behavior and make decisions more independently

from others. As both dimensions relate to enhancement of the self-concept, consumers within

national cultures that are characterized by a high degree of masculinity and/or individualism

can be expected to be affected by these cultural dimensions in their buying behavior. These

consumers will be more inclined to purchase products that will be reflective of their ambition,

wealth or success (masculinity) or contribute to their personal goals (individualism).

Consistent with this, Yaveroglu and Donthu (2002) found a positive influence of the degree of

a nation’s individualism and the adoption of technical consumer goods within Europe.

Steenkamp, ter Hofstede and Wedel (1999) related both dimensions of masculinity and

individualism to the degree of European consumers’ innovativeness and found positive

relations.

Within an organizational context, however, individuals have different roles. In order

for the organization to be successful, organizational members will be stimulated to align their

activities in accordance with organizational strategy and goals (Noble and Mokwa 1999).

Consequently, their role in organizational buying behavior will be driven by organizational

objectives rather than by individual reinforcement of the self-concept. Obviously, individuals

within organizations may not always act completely according to the (more rational) motives

of the organizational buying process, but nevertheless their self-interests are more likely to be

subjected to organizational motives. Morris, Davis and Allen (1994) related the cultural

dimension of individualism to organizational entrepreneurship and argue and find that “.. even

9
in highly individualistic societies, established firms are frequently not especially

entrepreneurial. This tendency may be due, at least in part, to the intervening impact of

corporate culture on entrepreneurship” (p. 71). Moreover, in contrast to the institutional

theoretical argument that, although managers conform to corporate goals, the institution

(organization) which they are part of will be affected by the national-culture, Heuer,

Cummings and Hutabarat (1999) find support for a narrowing of differences between cultural

dimensions among managers in the US versus Indonesia. Is sum, thus, unlike their influence

on consumer adoption we do not expect the cultural dimensions of masculinity and

individualism to significantly affect adoption behavior by organizational decision makers.

Therefore, we do not advance any hypotheses on them.

Uncertainty avoidance. People within countries that score highly on uncertainty

avoidance are more likely to show behavior that is risk averse (Hofstede 1991). Consequently,

individuals within countries characterized by high levels of uncertainty avoidance tend to be

more hesitant to accept something new than individuals within countries that score relatively

low on this cultural dimension. Therefore, the degree to which a national-culture can be

characterized by uncertainty avoidance has a negative effect on its residents’ intention to

innovate. Consistent with this, Steenkamp, ter Hofstede and Wedel (1999) find a negative

relation between uncertainty avoidance among countries in the European Union and consumer

innovativeness. Other studies find a similar effect on the diffusion of consumer goods in a

European context (Lynn and Gelb 1996; Yaveroglu and Donthu 2002; Tellis, Stremersch and

Yin 2003).

Relating uncertainty avoidance to an organizational context, institutional theory

suggests that managers are affected by their cultural context and that managerial decision-

making within uncertainty avoiding cultures may therefore tend to avoid risk-taking behavior

as well. With respect to innovation adoption, this implies that such managers—even though

10
they have business rather than personal motives to adopt innovations—are more reluctant to

adopt new products than their counterparts in less uncertainty avoiding cultures. However,

implementation theory suggests that activities executed by organizational members—of which

innovation adoption behavior can be considered one—will be driven primarily by

organizational goals (Noble and Mokwa 1999). This implies that managers may be more

willing to accept risk in the event that their decision helps to achieve organizational goals.

Moreover, given their hierarchical position they will experience a higher internal locus of

control, making them feel more comfortable to take action despite the uncertainty avoiding

context in which decisions have to be made (Shapero 1975). Consistent with this argument,

Mueller and Thomas (2000) find no differences in the likelihood of an innovative orientation

between low and high uncertainty avoiding cultures (measured among university students in

the US, Canada, Croatia, Slovenia, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Singapore and China).

Consequently, unlike its negative influence on innovation adoption intention in consumer

contexts, uncertainty avoidance can be expected to have little or even no effect in an

organizational setting. Hence, we hypothesize:

H2: The extent to which a country is characterized by a higher degree of uncertainty

avoidance will have a negative, but limited effect on a manager’s intention to adopt an

innovation.

2.2 The influence of individual variables on innovation adoption intention

The innovation characteristics as perceived by individuals play a central role in the

process of innovation adoption (Tornatzky and Hlein 1982). Characteristics that have been

found in previous research to have a dominating effect on the intention to adopt the innovation

include perceived relative advantage and perceived compatibility (Tornatzky and Hlein 1982,

Rogers 1995). The degree to which an innovation is perceived to provide relative advantages

11
over currently available alternatives can with little doubt be considered to be the major driver

of the adoption process (Robinson 1990). Especially in a business market context, relative

advantages will be sought in order to evaluate whether business related buying motives are

satisfied. Further, the degree to which an innovation matches the potential adopter’s needs and

wants (compatibility) significantly contributes to the likelihood of adoption (Holak 1988).

Innovations that help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of a potential adopter’s work

are more likely to be adopted. Again, this obviously will be highly relevant in a business

market environment. With respect to an innovation in telecommunications, this will involve

those individuals with high communication needs. Furthermore, the more explicit the felt

need, the more likely the individual will be receptive to an innovation. Need fulfillment is

vital for individuals in this case as it may affect their professional effectiveness and therefore

serves higher goals with respect to their organizational role. Hence, we not only expect the

innovation characteristics relative advantage and compatibility to have a positive direct effect

on adoption intention, but we also expect these relations to be enhanced for individuals who

may especially benefit from adopting the innovation. At the individual level, this will be

related to managers who travel extensively and have high communication needs when doing

so. At the country level, individuals will benefit from adopting the telecommunication

innovation studied here in the event that the national telecommunication infrastructure is

relatively poor. Thus, we hypothesize interaction effects of the innovation characteristics with

individual and national level variables in addition to their direct effects.

H3a: The perceived relative advantage of an innovation positively affects a manager’s

intention to adopt the innovation.

H3b: The positive influence of perceived relati ve advantage on a manager’s adoption

intention will be stronger when the individual’s mobility is higher (within individual

level interaction).

12
 H3c: The positive influence of perceived relative advantage on a manager’s adoption

intention will be stronger when the country’s telecommunication infrastructure is

poorer (cross-level interaction).

H4a: The compatibility of an innovation positively affects a manager’s intention to adopt

the innovation.

H4b: The positive influence of compatibility on a manager’s adoption intention will be

stronger when the individual’s mobility is higher (within individual level interaction).

H4c: The positive influence of compatibility on a manager’s adoption intention will be

stronger when the country’s telecommunication infrastructure is poorer (cross-level

interaction).

2.3 Covariates

In this study, our focus is on the effect of national-culture relative to individually

perceived innovation characteristics on the intended adoption of innovation. However,

previous research suggests other variables that may affect this relationship as well.

International diffusion studies suggest that economic factors influence innovation adoption

rates. These may be related to the general economic state of the nation in which the potential

adopter resides, reflected by a country’s GDP, and to the specific economic infrastructure

relevant to the innovation at play. As we focus on telecommunications, we include the

countries’ telecommunication infrastructure (see also Hypotheses 3c and 4c). At the

individual level, adopter characteristics have been found to significantly affect innovation

adoption decisions (Gatignon and Robertson 1985, Rogers 1995). These include the potential

adopter’s age (negative influence; Rogers 1995), income (positive effect; Rogers 1995) and

technology use (positive effect; Gauvin and Sinha 1993). We therefore include these variables

13
as covariates in our analyses as well, in addition to the individual’s travel behavior (mobility;

see Hypotheses 3b and 4b).

3. Method

Respondents1. Two hundred respondents were chosen in each country based on a screening

criterion of income and mobility patterns. Respondents are employees in various types of

businesses such as construction, retail trade, government, finance or agriculture. All

respondents had an executive or managerial occupation. A selection criterion was that they

were in the top 5% income group in their country and travelled abroad at least three times a

year. A professional marketing research firm collected the data using either phone-mail-phone

or personal interviews, depending on the country. A total of 3232 respondents from 22

countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia were

available for use in this study after checking for missing values. A distribution of respondents

across countries and key country characteristics are provided in Table 1. In Table 2 sample

characteristics are shown. Most respondents are managers or executives between 30 and 49

years of age and have a yearly gross income of between $50,000 to $ 150,000.

[Insert Tables 1 and 2 here]

All respondents were interviewed in the English language on their intention to adopt

two different telecommunication innovations, i.e. a satellite phone and a pager. The wireless

satellite phone costs $1500 and enables users to communicate from everywhere in the world.

Thus it was especially suitable for making phone calls in remote areas and while travelling.

The pager concerned a worldwide mobile data communication service. It costs $150 and can

1 The data were obtained from the company sponsoring this study.

14
provide both text and alphanumeric paging anywhere in the world. At the time of the study

(1996) no alternatives for these products were available. Cell phones were already introduced

at that time, but could only be used regionally in few areas with sufficient coverage;

competing paging services offered at that time were relatively basic and had only local or

regional coverage rather than worldwide availability. However, the pager as such was

available.

Measures. As recommended by Schwartz (1994) and in correspondence with e.g., Steenkamp

et al. (1999), we measured culture using the scores of Hofstede’s dimensions (Hofstede 2001).

Moreover, for all countries in our data set scores on Hofstede’s dimensions were available2.

The macro country specific data were gathered from the World Development Indicator

database (The World Bank 2002). Information on telephone infrastructure was collected from

International Telecommunication Union Statistical Yearbook CD ROM (1999). Since the

respondent data were collected in 1996, the country data from 1996 were used in our analyses.

At the individual level, the data included information on adoption intention, travel

behavior, communication service use while travelling, attitudes towards communication

service usage and ownership of various communication devices. Based on this, we

operationalized the constructs relevant to our study as follows. Adoption intention was

measured by the respondents’ likelihood of buying the innovation in the next twelve months

and five years, if they were available today. For each innovation two 5-point Likert scales

were used on sheets that were sent to the respondents (ranging from ‘definitely buy’,

‘probably buy’, ‘might or might not buy’, ‘probably not buy’, to ‘definitely not buy’; a

reversed scale was used for the analyses; satellite phone mean=4.03, SD=1.98; pager

2 In Hofstede (2001) estimates are given for China and Russia. For Saudi Arabia and Henya we took the

respective region scores (Arab countries and East Africa). We considered the culture scores as given by Schwartz
(1994). However, not for all countries his scores were available. Results on a subset of countries seem to suggest
a high degree of similarity.

15
mean=3.19, SD=2.42). The perceived relative advantage of the proposed innovation was

operationalized by means of the respondents’ perceived importance, on a ten point Likert

scale, of the following key characteristics of the two global wireless personal communications

services:

Satellite phone (mean=42.56/max of 60, SD=10.27):

• Being able to send and receive faxes with the wireless portable phone;
• Being able to transmit and receive data files and electronic mail messages with the wireless
portable phone;
• Ability to be reached anywhere in the world;
• Being able to use the voice/fax/data services in airplanes and at sea;
• Being able to use the voice/fax/data service while indoors near a window;
• Having a small, lightweight, pocket-sized handset.

Pager (mean=15.20/max of 20, SD=4.34):

• Being able to receive and/or respond to paging messages anywhere on earth ;
• Ability to be reached anywhere in the world .

The compatibility of the innovation relates to the extent that it matches with the

potential adopter’s needs. This was measured by the number of phone calls, faxes and data

transmissions sent and/or received by the potential adopter during a typical day while

travelling or abroad. This number can be considered a valid reflection of the respondent’s

communication needs, and may be a more desirable measure than the perceptual measures

commonly used. The higher these communication activities, the more the proposed innovation

will be compatible with the manager’s activities and (communication) needs. To avoid

outliers we performed a log transformation of this measure (mean=.56, SD=.48). Technology

use was operationalized by the number of technological products that respondents currently

own or make use of, including a cellular phone, a pager, an airplane phone, a laptop or

palmtop computer, and/or an electronic pocket organizer. Thus, the variable technology use

ranges from ‘0’ referring to no ownership or use of those products, to ‘5’ indicating ownership

or use of all aforementioned products (mean=1.86, SD=1.19). Mobility was operationalized by

the number of annual visits the respondents made to countries outside their home country. To

avoid outliers we also performed a log transformation of this variable (mean=.74, SD=.33). In

16
addition, socio-demographic information such as age, occupation, and income level was

available. Age was measured in 10-year intervals. Annual income was measured using 6

categories (<$ 50,000; $50,000 to $99,999; $100,000-$149,999; $150,000-$199,999;

$200,000-$249,999; >$250,000). Finally, we also recorded whether the respondents had to

pay for the innovation themselves or whether the company would pay for it (whopays).

Data analysis.

Country level variables. As it is known that the four Hofstede dimensions are correlated with

each other and with country macro characteristics (Hofstede 2001) we have to deal with the

multi-collinearity problem. In our data the Hofstede dimensions are correlated, as expected.

For example, the correlation between individualism and power distance is -.75 (p <. 01). The

correlation of both these dimensions with uncertainty avoidance is not significant; correlations

are -.08 and .13, respectively.

It should be noted that the Hofstede dimensions are also highly correlated with the

variables measuring economic wealth. The correlation of GDP per capita with individualism

(.57) and power distance (-.62) is significant (both p < .01). This is in line with Hofstede’s

(2001) information on 52 countries. He reports a correlation of .85 between individualism and

wealth (i.e. GDP per capita), and a correlation of -.65 between power distance and wealth.

Moreover, in his data the correlation between wealth and uncertainly avoidance is not

significant. The 22 countries in our dataset thus seem a reasonable representation of the 52

countries included in Hofstede’s study.

To avoid multi-collinearity between the variables at the country level, we conducted a

factor analysis to extract orthogonal constructs. We extracted factors using Principal

Components Analysis, with Varimax rotation. On the basis of the eigenvalue criterion and the

scree plot we retained two factors, that together explain 74% of variance:

17
 (1) Level of development (55% of variance). This factor includes: number of phones per

thousand inhabitants (.911), GDP per capita (.895), individualism (.835), power

distance (-. 854), and masculinity (.498).

(2) Uncertainty avoidance (19% of variance). This factor reflects the cultural dimension

of uncertainty avoidance (.948).

Individual level variables. Most variables were measured by observable characterisics such as

the number of trips made (mobility) or the number of calls, faxes, and messages sent and

received (compatibility). For these variables cross-national equivalence can be assumed as, for

example, number of trips made can be compared directly across countries. Only for relative

advantage a scale was used. The overall reliability of the scale on relative advantage of the

satellite phone was .74 (Cronbach’s alpha), exceeding the recommended cut-off value of .70

for good reliability (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). For the two-item scale on relative

advantage of the pager Cronbach’s alpha was .64, a satisfactory value.

Multi-level analysis. Our conceptual framework encompasses variables both at the country

and the individual respondent level. Respondents and countries have a hierarchical

relationship, because lower level observations (respondents) are nested within higher levels

(countries). An appropriate technique to take the nested structure of the data into account is

multi-level modeling (e.g., Bryk and Raudenbush 1992, Hreft and De Leeuw 1998) and has

been used in international research (Steenkamp, ter Hofstede and Wedel 1999). In multi-level

modeling the key notion is that relationships between variables at the lowest level are not

necessarily the same for each higher level. For example, the relationship between relative

advantage and adoption intention may be different across countries. An interesting property of

multi-level analysis is that different variables can be used to explain variance at the subject

and the country level. We used Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM 5; Bryk and Raudenbush

1992, Bryk, Raudenbush, Cheong and Congdon 2000) to execute the data analysis.

18
4. Results

At the aggregated (high) level, we have 22 observations, i.e. the countries included in

our study. We will refer to this level as ‘level 2’. The variables included at this level are both

national culture dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty

avoidance) and economic variables (GDP and telecom infrastructure). These variables are

represented in the analysis by the two extracted factors – level of development and uncertainty

avoidance. At the individual level, we have 3232 respondents. We refer to this as ‘level 1’. At

this level, we consider the innovation characteristics (relative advantage, compatibility) and

their interaction with the manager’s mobility. We also include the covariates age, income and

technology use as well as the source for financing the purchase (whopays) at this level. We

use the means-as-outcomes regression model (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992)3. In this model,

intercepts are random and the slopes of the regression lines are fixed.

Cross-level interactions are included for the level 1 individual level variables relative

advantage and compatibility with the level 2 factors at the country level (level of development

and uncertainty avoidance) on intention to adopt. The coefficients are all unstandardized

regression coefficients, consistent with the HLM approach (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992).

We estimate four models of increasing generality. Model 1 only includes repondent

level (level 1) main effects. Model 2 adds individual level interaction terms. Next, Model 3

adds the level 2 main effects. Finally Model 4 is the most general model, including cross-level

interaction terms. We used this nested approach in order to assess the contribution of the

various variables at the two levels to the overall fit of the model.4 The results are given in

Table 3A for the satellite phone and Table 3B for the pager.

3 In the results we used uncentered data at the individual level and grand centering at the country level. We tested

the model for alternative variants of centering (Hofmann and Gavin 1998) but similar results were found.
4 Whether a model is a significant improvement compared to the previous model is measured by the Deviance

statistic. Deviance is equal to –2*log-likelihood at maximum likelihood estimate (see Bryk et al. 2000).
Deviance is computed for each model and the difference between deviancies (ODeviance) has a y2 distribution

19
 [Insert Tables 3A and 3B here]

Model 1 in Table 3A shows that the effect of relative advantage is significant (y10 =

.047, p < .01) and in the hypothesized direction for the satellite phone. The hypothesized

relation between adoption intention and compatibility is also supported (y20 = .256, p < .05).

The effects of the covariates income (y40 = .116, p < .05) and technology use (y50 = .122, p <

.01) are significant and in the expected direction. The effect for age is not significant;

moreover, whether the company pays for the phone or the manager is also not significant. In

Models 2A and 2B (variants of Model 2) the interaction effects between mobility and relative

advantage and compatibility, respectively, are added to the model. Compatibility and the

interaction of compatibility with mobility are highly correlated. Only the interaction between

relative advantage and mobility provides a significant addition to the model (y70 = .01, p <

.01), providing support for H3b and not for H4b. Next, the country level variables are

included in Model 3. The factor indicating level of development (including the cultural

dimensions individualism, masculinity, and power distance) provides a significant

contribution to the model (y01 = -.422, p < .01). As power distance is part of this factor

(negative loading), this finding suggests support for H1. The other main effect at the country

level, uncertainty avoidance, is not significant, failing to support H2. The coefficient has a

sign in the expected direction, though. In Model 4 cross-level interactions are included. The

results indicate that the relation between compatibility and adoption intention is moderated by

the factor development (y13 = .254, p < .01), indicating that compatibility has a stronger effect

on adoption in countries with lower level of development, as hypothesized (H4c); such an

effect is not found for relative advantage (H3c).

under the null-hypothesis that no difference between the model and the more parsimonious previous model
exists.

20
 Results for the second telecom innovation, the pager, are given in Table 3B. For

adoption intention of the pager, relative advantage (y10 = .151, p < .01) and compatibility (y20 =

.141, p < .10) both have a significant positive effect, as expected (see Model 1). Also, the

effect of technology use is significant and positive (y50 = .151, p < .01). The other covariates

are not significant. For this innovation, the interaction effects at the individual level have no

significant contribution to the model. Similar to the results for the satellite phone, Model 3

shows, that the factor economic development is significant (y01 = -.560, p < .01), but

uncertainty avoidance is not. Also, as for the satellite phone, the interaction of compatibility

and development has a positive effect on intention to adopt the product (see Model 4).

In sum, among the level 1 variables, relative advantage and technology use are

positively linked with adoption intention for both innovations, while compatibility and income

are significant only for satellite phones. The individual level interaction between relative

advantage and mobility is only significant for the satellite phone, reflecting the utility of this

particular innovation for extensive travelers. At level 2, level of development is negatively

linked with adoption likelihood for both innovations, reflecting the need for these telecom

innovations in less developed countries. Consistent with this finding, the cross-level

interaction between compatibility and level of development is significant for both innovations.

Culture or economic variables?

At the country level the results show that only the factor ‘level of development’

significantly affects adoption intention. However, this factor represents both cultural and

economic variables, implying that we cannot conclude whether the finding should be

attributed to culture or the economic variables. In order to separate these effects, we re-

estimated Models 3 and 4 using one country-level variable at a time. This provides insight

into the unique contribution of each country level variable on adoption intention. Results are

21
shown in Table 4 for Model 3 (main effects) and Table 5 for Model 4 (cross-level

interactions).

[Insert Tables 4 and 5 here]

We first examine the main effects of the separate country level culture and economic

variables (Model 3). Since the second factor, uncertainty avoidance, is not significant, we only

examine the separate effects of variables that comprise the level of development factor: viz.

individualism, power distance, masculinity, GDP per capita, and telephones per thousand. For

the satellite phone, the variable explaining most variance at the country level is telephone

infrastructure (ODeviance = 9.93, df = 2, p < .01, see Table 4)5. In countries with a poor

telephone infrastructure the intention to adopt is higher. GDP per capita and individualism

also contribute significantly if entered separately. It should be noted here that individualism

has a negative sign, likely caused by the high correlation with GDP per capita. However,

power distance alone does not contribute significantly (ODeviance = 2.43, df = 2, NS). Thus,

it seems that it is mainly the economic variables and not culture variables that explain

variance at the country level for adoption intention of the satellite phone.

For the pager, power distance contributes most (ODeviance = 7.94, df = 2, p < .05),

indicating that intention to adopt a pager is higher in countries where power distance is higher

(cf. H1). Similar to the satellite phone, individualism has a negative relationship with

intention to adopt (ODeviance = 7.54, df = 2, p < .05). Both GDP per capita and telephone

infrastructure also significantly increase model fit (both p < .05). However, for the adoption

intention of the pager, culture seems slightly more important than the economic environment.

In order to assess whether the culture or the economic variables in the factor level of

development have a more profound influence on the cross-level interactions with

5 The ODeviance in this model is calculated by subtracting the Deviance of this model from the Deviance of

Model 2B (Table 3A) and Model 2 (Table 3B) respectively. All models in Table 4 are variants of Model 3.

22
compatibility, we also estimated the interactions for each level 2 variable separately. Results

are given in Table 56. For the satellite phone, the cross-level interaction between compatibility

and individualism leads to a significant improvement of fit compared to Model 3 (ODeviance

= 12.73, df = 2, p < .01). Power distance (negative effect), GDP per capita and telephone

infrastructure also improve model fit (all p < .01). This implies that culture, and individualism

in particular, moderate the effect compatibility has on adoption intention of the satellite

phone.

For the pager, both individualism (positive effect) and power distance (negative effect)

moderate the effect compatibility has on adoption intention of the pager (both p < .05). The

effects of the economic variables, GDP per capita (not significant) and telephone

infrastructure (p< .10) are lower.

In sum, the main effects of economic variables are dominant for satellite phones, while

both culture and economic variables are important for pagers, with the culture slightly more

important. The culture variables appear to moderate the relationship between compatibility

and adoption propensity for both innovations.

5. Discussion and implications

This study is distinctive from previous research as it investigates the influence of

national-cultural and economic antecedents of innovation adoption intention in addition to

individual level variables in a business-to-business context. An important contribution of the

present research is that the model could be tested using large-scale survey data from more

than three thousand managers across twenty-two countries, indicative of the different national

cultural dimensions identified in previous research. The results of our study provide

substantial support for the conceptual framework proposed. Particularly, in this study we

6 The model in Table 5 is a variant of Model 4 (satellite phone) and Model 4B (pager). For calculating

ODeviance, Model 3 is used.

23
argued that in contrast to consumer adoption of innovations, the influence of national-culture

relative to economic and individual drivers is a less prominent one. Instead, given the business

context in which the adoption decision takes place, economic factors and variables indicating

a positive utility of the innovation are expected and found to dominate adoption. In particular,

we find that individual level variables generally dominate country-level explanatory factors of

adoption. Specifically, we find that for the satellite phone the degree to which the innovation

is compatible with the potential adopter’s behavior positively affects adoption intention, as

does the perceived relative advantage (for both innovations). Moreover, in the case of the

satellite phone the latter effect is enhanced for individuals who travel extensively as these

managers will benefit from adoption most. The identification of both innovation

characteristics as key drivers of the adoption decision is consistent with prior research (Rogers

1995). Further, consistent with findings by Gauvin and Sinha (1993), an individual manager’s

prior adoption of technological innovations was found to be a significant antecedent of

adoption intention for both innovations. Interestingly, potential adopter characteristics

commonly found to affect consumer adoption were not found to be important. Age had no

effect, whereas income was only significant for the more expensive innovation.7

At the country level, national-culture is not found to be a major antecedent of

innovation adoption, as expected. Only two dimensions are found to affect adoption to some

extent, i.e. individualism and power distance. Individualism is found to have a negative effect

on adoption, in contrast with research in a consumer context (e.g., Steenkamp, ter Hofstede

and Wedel 1999). This can be explained by the high correlation of this dimension of national

culture with economic variables such as GDP and telecommunication infrastructure. Both

economic variables were found to negatively affect adoption of the telecom innovations

studied here, as these are more useful for managers in countries with poor infrastructures (that

7 Interestingly, if only the group of managers who had to pay for the innovation themselves is considered, age

becomes significant with the expected negative sign.

24
generally also have a relatively low GDP-level). Another explanation may be related to the

need for communication with one’s ‘in-group’ in collectivist rather than individualistic

nations, resulting in more willingness to adopt innovations that enhance interactivity in

countries low on individualism (Maitland 1999, p. 345). Power distance was found to

positively affect adoption, as expected, but for the pager only. This may be related to the high

price of the satellite phone, triggering more economically related antecedents of its adoption.

Some interesting cross-level interactions were found. The positive effect of

compatibility on adoption intention was enhanced in countries with lower degree of economic

development. This finding seems very plausible as these countries suffer from poor

telecommunications infrastructures, in which case adoption of new telecom devices becomes

more important for those managers with high communication needs. Separating out the

cultural and economic effects, we found that compatibility had stronger effect in less

individualistic countries. Following Maitland (1999) that interactive communication needs

may be higher in more collectivist societies, this effect can be explained. The effect of

compatibility on adoption intention was found to be less strong in countries with high power

distance for both innovations considered in our study (a positive main effect was found for the

pager, not for the satellite phone). This finding implies that in high power distance countries

compatibility is less important; the more ‘rational’ motives for adoption (i.e., high

communication needs reflected in the compatibility construct) are dominated by the authority

and power effect reflected by the cultural dimension (as suggested by Hypothesis 1). These

cultural interaction effects notwithstanding, we also find for the satellite phone that the effect

of compatibility is enhanced in countries with low GDP and poor telecommunication

infrastructure, suggesting an important role of economic factors. Interestingly, culture is thus

found to play a more dominant role in the adoption intention for pagers than for satellite

phones. The importance of utility for the adoption intention of the satellite phone may in part

25
be accounted for by the high price of the new product. As the stakes are higher, the usefulness

of the innovation becomes more important; especially since the adoption is not related to

personal consumption. Furthermore, the degree of newness of the innovations considered in

this study may affect our results. The pager can be considered to be incrementally new,

whereas the satellite phone represents a more radical innovation. Given the familiarity of most

potential adopters with the pager and its relatively lower price, this product may be considered

more of a ‘consumable’ product than the satellite phone. Accordingly, its adoption may be

affected by factors found in consumer adoption contexts, such as culture, to a larger extent

than for the satellite phone.

This study has implications relevant to both theory and management. The main

theoretical implication of this research is that insights related to adoption drivers in consumer

markets cannot be projected as such to business-to-business contexts. Although this has also

been pointed out in previous work on the topic (e.g, Gatignon and Robertson 1989), this is the

first study to do so with respect to national-level variables, especially culture in relation to

economics, in addition to individual-level antecedents. Moreover, as major countries across

all continents are included in this research, the results allow us to capture more meaningful

variance in country characteristics and thus enable us to better generalize our findings on a

global scale. Previous research on innovation adoption or innovativeness only considered

selective countries or parts of the world.

Another implication of the study is that it provides further support for the convergence

hypothesis that emerged from the literature on international management (e.g., Helley et al.

1997). As opposed to the arguments of institutional theory, we find evidence that the

innovation adoption decision by our respondents is affected by a set of very similar drivers,

irrespective of their country-of-origin. Consistently, a highly comparable set of individual

level drivers was found to influence adoption intention across countries; on the national level,

26
economic variables affecting the usefulness of adopting the innovations studied here were

found to be important drivers of the managers’ decision relative to cultural dimensions. This

implies that managers may indeed constitute a relatively homogeneous segment and let

business motives rather than personal motives (as in consumer adoption) drive their intended

behavior.

The managerial implications of these findings are that suppliers of innovations

positioned for the business market may be able to increasingly target managers across nations

as homogenous segments, allowing for higher degrees of marketing standardization. Note that

in that case global segmentation may be more relevant with respect to the different type of

managers (for example, the executives studied in this research as one segment) or their price

responsiveness (Agarwal 2003) than with respect to managers in one country versus those in

another. Our findings also suggest that suppliers of an innovation should be able to clearly

identify and communicate the usefulness of the innovation at hand, as this will be a key driver

of the adoption decision (which is consistent with the perceived usefulness as key driver of

managers’ adoption of information technology; see e.g., Davis 1989). Moreover, the

importance of the compatibility of the innovation with its potential adopter found in this study

implies that suppliers should focus on those potential adopters that may benefit from the

innovation most, also taking into account the economic context in which adoption is

considered. This suggests that different factors may be at play than commonly considered in

consumer markets (utilitarian motives as key driver versus a mix of utilitarian and hedonic

motives and individual adopter characteristics). One exception seems to be the role of

authority given the effects found for the cultural dimension of power distance, which was

found to be significant in some cases (direct for pagers, moderating for both innovations). To

the extent that the innovation shows high similarity with ‘consumer type innovations’, more

“traditional” adoption factors (such as age and income) may be relevant as well.

27
 As any research, this study also has some limitations that may stimulate further

research on the issue. First, as the data were gathered for commercial purposes and obtained

from a professional marketing research firm, the scales could not be developed to serve the

purpose of our study. Therefore, although the measures used for the variables are very

appropriate, we had to use unvalidated proxies in some cases. Second, as the data were

obtained through quota sampling, the number of observations per country did not reflect the

relative importance (country size) of that country within our data. Third, we used Hofstede’s

dimensions to reflect national-culture. Although this is a widely accepted and used

operationalization of culture, it may not reflect the heterogeneity present among individuals

within countries. Future research, therefore, may use operationalizations of culture based on

the typology proposed by Schwartz (1994).

Research on the influence of culture on individual behavior is complex. Despite the

limitations of the present study, we believe that it contributes to a further understanding of the

phenomenon and we hope it helps to stimulate the design and execution of increasingly fine-

grained studies that address this interesting relationship.

28
References

Agarwal, M.H. (2003). Developing global segments and forecasting market shares: a simultaneous
approach using survey data. Journal of International Marketing, 11 (4), forthcoming.

Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992), Hierarchical Linear Models: applications and data analysis
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bryk, A.S, Raudenbush, S.W., Cheong, Y.F. & Congdon, R. (2000). HLM5 Hierarchical Linear and
Nonlinear Modeling. SSI Scientific Software International.

Cardozo, R., McLaughlin, H., Harmon, B., Reynolds, P. & Miller, B. (1993). Product-market choices
and growth of new businesses. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 331-340.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, September, 319-340.

Dawar, N. & Parker, P.M. (1994). Marketing universals: consumers’ use of brand name, price,
physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. Journal of Marketing 58
(April), 81-95.

Day, R.L. & Herbig, P.A. (1990). How the diffusion of industrial innovations is different from new
retail products. Industrial Marketing Management, 19 (3), 261-266.

Dekimpe, M.G., Parker, P.M. & Sarvary, M. (1998). Stages estimation of international diffusion
models; an application to global cellular telephone adoption. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 57, 105-132.

Dekimpe, M.G., Parker, P.M. & Sarvary, M. (2000). Global diffusion of technological innovations: a
coupled-hazard approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (February), 47-59.

Douglas, S.P. & Craig, C.S. (1992). Advances in international marketing. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 9 (December), 291-318.

Fisher, R.J. & Price, L.L. (1992). An investigation into the social context of early adoption behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 477-486.

Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T.S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 11 (March), 849-867.

Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T.S. (1989). Technology diffusion: an empirical test of competitive effects.
Journal of Marketing, 53 (January), 35-49.

29
Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T.S. (1991). Innovative decision processes. In: Handbook of Consumer
Behavior, Robertson, T.S. & Hassarjian, H.H. (eds.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.

Gatignon, H., Eliashberg, J. & Robertson, T.S. (1989). Modeling multinational diffusion patterns: an
efficient methodology. Marketing Science, 8 (3), 231-247.

Gauvin, S. & Sinha, R.H. (1993). Innovativeness in industrial organizations: a two-stage model of
adoption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (2), 165-183.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American
Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.

Helsen, H., Jedidi, H. & DeSarbo, W.S. (1993). A new approach to country segmentation utilizing
multinational diffusion patterns. Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 60-71.

Heuer, M., Cummings, J.L. & Hutabarat, W. (1999). Cultural stability or change among managers in
Indonesia? Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (3), 599-610.

Hofmann, D.A. & Gavin, M.B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: implications
for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24 (5), 623-641.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations; Software of the mind. McGraw Hill, England.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences, 2nd Edition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Holak, S.L. (1988). Determinants of innovative durables adoption; an empirical study with
implications for early product screening. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 50-69.

Helley, L., Whatley, A. & Worthley, W. (1987). Assessing the effects of culture on managerial attitudes: a
three-culture test. Journal of International Business Studies, 17-31.

Hreft, I.G.G. & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multi-level modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Humar, V., Ganesh, J. & Echambadi, R. (1998). Cross-national diffusion research: what do we know and
how certain are we? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 255-268.

Lynn, M. & Gelb, B.D. (1996). Identifying innovative national markets for technical consumer goods.
International Marketing Review, 13 (6), 43-57.

30
Maitland, C. (1999). Global diffusion of interactive networks: the impact of culture. AI & Society, 13, 341-
356.

Morris, M.H., Davis, D.L. & Allen, J.W. (1994). Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: cross-cultural
comparisons of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Journal of International Business
Studies, 25 (1), 65-89.

Mueller, S.L. & Thomas, A.S. (2000). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine-country study of locus
of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51-75.

Nakata, C. & Sivakumar, H. (2001). Instituting the marketing concept in a multinational setting: the role
of national culture. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (3), 255-275.

Noble, C.H. & Mokwa, M.P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: developing and testing
managerial theory. Journal of Marketing, 63 (October), 57-73.

Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill: NY

Robertson, T.S. & Gatignon, H. (1986). Competitive effects on technology diffusion. Journal of
Marketing, 50 (3), 1-12.

Robinson, W.T. (1990). Product innovation and start-up business market share performance. Management
Science, 36 (10), 1279-1289.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press.

Schwartz , S.H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of value. In:
Individualism and collectivism: new theory, method and applications , Him, U. et al., eds. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, 85-119.

Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 59-
73.

Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today, 9 (6), 83-88.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation into the
individual and national-cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63
(April), 55-69.

31
Sundqvist, S., Frank, L. & Puumalainen, H. (2003). The effects of country characteristics, cultural
similarity and adoption timing on the diffusion of wireless communications. Journal of Business
Research, forthcoming.

Takada, H. & Jain, D. (1991). Cross-national analysis of diffusion of consumer durable goods in Pacific
Rim countries. Journal of Marketing 55 (April), 48-54.

Tan, B.L.B. (2002). Researching managerial values: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business
Research, 55, 815-821.

Tellis, G.J., Stremersch, S. & Yin, E. (2003). The international takeoff of new products: the role of
economics, culture and country innovativeness. Marketing Science, forthcoming.

Tornatzky, L.G. & Hlein, H.J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation:
a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29 (1), 28-45.

Yaveroglu, I.S. & Donthu, N. (2002). Cultural influences on the diffusion of new products. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing,14 (4), 49-63.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.

32
 TABLE 1
Distribution of respondents across countries and country characteristics

Country Number of GDP per Telephones IDVa UAI PDI MAS

respondents capita ($) per 1000
(n=3232)
Australia 176 19079.22 50.97 90 51 36 61
Brazil 178 3850.04 7.48 38 76 69 49
Canada 170 18957.55 58.97 80 48 39 52
China 168 553.27 3.35 20 30 80 66
France 142 26184.80 55.80 71 86 68 43
Germany 167 26066.82 49.35 67 65 35 66
Hong Hong 174 23271.41 53.25 25 29 68 57
India 22 366.33 1.29 48 40 77 56
Indonesia 144 880.95 1.69 14 48 78 46
Italy 130 18165.76 43.35 76 75 50 70
Japan 173 40595.58 48.80 46 92 54 95
Henya 85 262.55 .90 27 52 64 41
Horea (South) 186 10157.66 41.47 18 85 60 39
Mexico 180 2929.22 9.58 30 82 81 69
Philippines 29 1083.40 2.09 32 44 94 64
Russian Federation 131 4625.26 16.99 39 95 93 36
Saudi Arabia 158 6978.38 9.62 38 68 80 53
South Africa 181 3240.30 9.45 65 49 49 63
Spain 162 14274.05 38.50 51 86 57 42
Thailand 175 2765.32 5.86 20 64 64 34
UH 118 18905.63 50.25 89 35 35 66
USA 183 26917.08 62.57 90 46 40 62

a IDV=Individualism; UAI=Uncertainty Avoidance; PDI=Power Distance; MAS=Masculinity.

33
 TABLE 2
Sample characteristics

Characteristic Number of Percentage

respondents
Age category (n=3232)
21 - 29 years 451 14.0%
30 - 39 years 1096 33.9%
40 - 49 years 1059 32.8%
50 - 59 years 536 16.6%
60 - 69 years 90 2.8%
Annual household income before taxes
Under $50,000 430 13.3%
$50,000 to $99,999 943 29.2%
$100,000 to $149,999 780 24.1%
$150,000 to $199,999 491 15.2%
$200,000 to $249,999 253 7.8%
$250,000 or more 335 10.4%
Nature of business
Construction 182 5.6%
Retail Trade 319 9.9%
Manufacturing 605 18.7%
Communications 159 4.9%
Government 175 5.4%
Finance / Insurance /Real Estate 301 9.3%
Utilities (Electricity/Gas/Water) 47 1.5%
Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 31 1.0%
Wholesale Trade 394 12.2%
Transportation 138 4.3%
Services 411 12.7%
Mining 57 1.8%
Other 129 4.0%
Unknown 284 8.8%
Occupation
Executive or managerial 2037 63.0%
Professional or technical 707 21.9%
Sales 352 10.9%
Administrative support 136 4.2%

34
TABLE 3A: Multi-Level (HLM) results of adoption intention for the satellite phone a

HYPOTHESIS MODEL 1 MODEL 2Ac MODEL 2Bc MODEL 3 MODEL 4

Intercept (y00) 1.322*** 1.418*** 1.414*** 1.420*** 1.442***

Country level main effects

Level of Development (y01) H1 (-)1 -.422*** -.373*
Uncertainty Avoidance (y03) H2 (-) -.019 -.006

Individual level main effects

Relative advantage (y10) H3a (+) .047*** .042*** .040*** .039*** .039***
Compatibility (y20) H4a (+) .256** .017 .206** .210*** .172**
Age (y30) -.000 -.008 -.007 -.000 -.001
Income (y40) .116** .104*** .104*** .096*** .095***
Technology use (y50) .122*** .111*** .111** .118*** .119***
Pay self (y60) .045 .072 .070 .070 .073

Individual level interactions

Relative advantage x mobility (y70) H3b (+) .007* .010*** .011*** .010***
Compatibility x mobility (y80) H4b (+) .248

Cross-level interactions
Relative advantage x Level of Development (y12) H3c (+) -.004
Compatibility x Level of Development (y13) H4c (+) .254***

Country level variance .41584 .44129 .44328 .27223 .2855

Individual level variance 3.20759 3.1899 3.1914 3.1918 3.178

Model fit
Deviance statisticb (Df) 13003.07 (6) 12986.54 (5) 12988.15 (4) 12978.62 (2) 12965.28 (2)
ODeviance 300.74*** 16.53*** 14.93*** 9.53*** 13.34***
*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01
a Number of observations at level 1 (respondents)= 3232; number of observations at level 2 (countries)= 22.
b Model 1 is against null-model; Model 2 is against Model 1; Model 3 is against Model 2B; Model 4 is against Model 3.
c In Model B the non-significant interaction term is deleted.
1 PDI is hypothesized to positively affect adoption intention, but loads negatively on this factor; therefore a negative effect is expected here. Also a negative effect is expected

from the economic variables as per the hypotheses on cross-level interactions.

35
TABLE 3B: Multi-Level (HLM) results of adoption intention for the pager a

HYPOTHESIS MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4Ac MODEL 4Bc

Intercept (y00) .982*** .993*** .979*** .976*** 1.013***

Country level main effects

Level of Development (y01) H1 (-)1 -.560*** -.561** -.662***
Uncertainty Avoidance (y03) H2 (-) -.047 -.038 -.042

Individual level main effects

Relative advantage (y10) H3a (+) .151*** .155*** .150*** .150*** .149***
Compatibility (y20) H4a (+) .141* .066 .143* .110 .110
Age (y30) -.059 -.059 -.053 -.054 -.055
Income (y40) -.026 -.025 -.029 -.030 -.031
Technology use (y50) .151*** .152*** .160*** .159*** .158***
Pay self (y60) .045 .044 .043 .047 .049

Individual level interactions

Relative advantage x mobility (y70) H3b (+) -.005
Compatibility x mobility (y80) H4b (+) .105

Cross-level interactions
Relative advantage x Level of Development (y12) H3c (+) -.007
Compatibility x Level of Development (y13) H4c (+) .193** .184**

Country level variance .81691 .80936 .53469 .53467 .53630

Individual level variance 4.25092 4.25064 4.25027 4.24207 4.24280

Model fit
Deviance statisticb (Df) 13526.48 (6) 13526.08 (2) 13517.22 (2) 13511.19 (2) 13511.79 (1)
ODeviance 318.92*** 0.40 9.27** 6.03** 5.43**
*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01
a Level 1: N=3140; level 2 N=22; at level 2 grand centering is used.
b Model 1 is against null-model; Model 2 is against Model 1; Model 3 is against Model 1; Models 4A and 4B are against Model 3.
c In Model B the non-significant interaction term is deleted.
1 PDI is hypothesized to positively affect adoption intention, but loads negatively on this factor; therefore a negative effect is expected here. Also a negative effect is expected

from the economic variables as per the hypotheses on cross-level interactions.

36
TABLE 4: Influence of separate culture and economic variables on adoption intention
SATELLITE PHONE PAGER
Variable Coefficient O Deviance (2 df) Coefficient O Deviance (2 df)
Factor:
Level of development a -.422*** 9.53*** -.560*** 9.27**

Separate variables:
Individualism -.015** 6.85** -.020*** 7.54**
Power Distance .013 2.43 .029*** 7.94**
Masculinity -.021* 3.96 -.021 2.21
GDP per capita -.00004*** 9.42*** -.00004** 6.69**
Telephone infrastructure -.018*** 9.93*** -.020** 5.99**
*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01
a These coefficients are the country-level main effects of Model 3 shown in Tables 3A and 3B.

TABLE 5: Influence of separate cross-level interactions of culture and economic variables with compatibility on adoption
intention
SATELLITE PHONE PAGER
Interaction Coefficient O Deviance (2 df) Coefficient O Deviance (1 df)
Factor interaction: .254*** a
13.34*** .184** b 5.43**
Compatibility x Level of development
Separate variables’ interactions:
Compatibility x Individualism .009*** 12.37*** .007** 5.66**
Compatibility x Power Distance -.012** 9.43*** -.012** 7.63***
Compatibility x Masculinity .014 9.80*** .011* 3.82*
Compatibility x GDP per capita .00002*** 7.14*** .000009 1.91
Compatibility x Telephone infrastructure .008*** 7.76*** .006 3.44*
*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01
a Coefficient from Model 4 in Table 3A.
b Coefficient from Model 4B in Table 3B.

37
 FIGURE 1
Conceptual framework for the influence of country-level variables and
individual-level variables on managers’ innovation adoption intention

Country level

CULTURE
- Power Distance (H1, +)
- Individualism & MAS (0)
- Uncertainty Avoidance
(H2, -)

ECONOMICS
- GDP
- Infrastructure (H3c/4c)

Individual level
ADOPTION
INTENTION
INNOVATION
CHARACTERISTICS

- Relative advantage
(H3a, +)
- Compatibility (H4a, +) ADOPTER ADOPTER CHAR.
MOBILITY - Age (-),
(H3b/4b) - Income (+),
- Technology use (+)

38