Innovativeness (Product Trial) (INNOPROD)

1. Abstract

The Innovativeness (Product Trial) Scale (INNOPROD) is an eight-item psychometric instrument developed by Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp and Katrijn Gielens (2003) to quantify consumer innovativeness specifically operationalized as the behavioral predisposition to try new packaged goods and novel brands shortly after their market introduction. Consumer researchers and marketing scientists have long recognized that the successful adoption and diffusion of new products depends on early trial by receptive consumer segments. Rooted in theories of diffusion of innovations, optimum stimulation level (OSL), and exploratory consumer behavior, the INNOPROD scale bridges the gap between abstract, personality-level traits and actual in-store purchasing conduct within fast-moving consumer goods (CPG) categories.

The instrument is structured as a unidimensional self-report scale comprising eight items scored on a five-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Across extensive empirical validations integrating psychometric surveys with longitudinal household scanner panel data, the INNOPROD scale exhibits robust psychometric properties. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that the measure forms a single coherent latent factor with high standardized factor loadings (ranging between .60 and .85). Internal consistency reliability is high, with reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding .82, alongside composite reliability metrics above .84. The scale demonstrates excellent predictive validity, directly accounting for individual-level trial probabilities and adoption speed across hundreds of real-world consumer packaged goods introductions. In research settings, INNOPROD serves as a vital diagnostic tool for testing econometric adoption models, segmenting receptive consumer cohorts, and understanding the cognitive and motivational mechanisms driving exploratory buying behavior.

2. Keywords

Consumer innovativeness, product trial, INNOPROD, exploratory buying behavior, new product adoption, consumer packaged goods, diffusion of innovations, optimum stimulation level, psychometrics, scale validation, purchase behavior, brand switching.

3. Authors

The INNOPROD scale was developed and validated by two leading scholars in marketing strategy, psychometrics, and quantitative consumer behavior:

• Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, Ph.D.: C. Knox Massey Distinguished Professor of Marketing at the Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA; Fellow of the European Marketing Academy (EMAC). Dr. Steenkamp is an internationally recognized authority on global branding, quantitative marketing methodology, structural equation modeling, and consumer behavior.
• Katrijn Gielens, Ph.D.: Professor of Marketing and Sarah Graham Kenan Scholar at the Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. Dr. Gielens specializes in retailing, private label dynamics, international retail strategy, and new product performance in consumer packaged goods markets.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the INNOPROD scale is to assess the degree to which an individual consumer is predisposed to be among the first to sample, purchase, and adopt newly introduced consumer packaged products and novel brands. While new product development represents a multi-billion-dollar enterprise for global manufacturers, empirical failure rates for new consumer packaged goods consistently hover between 60% and 80%. A central challenge in marketing science has been accurately identifying the psychological profiles of early adopters who ignite the initial sales velocity required for an innovation to survive the early stages of its lifecycle.

Prior to the formulation of INNOPROD, researchers frequently relied on general personality inventories (such as innate innovativeness measures) or high-involvement domain-specific scales (such as the Domain-Specific Innovativeness scale developed by Goldsmith and Hofacker in 1991). However, general personality constructs often display weak predictive validity when applied to everyday purchasing scenarios in grocery and packaged goods environments. Conversely, category-specific scales necessitate re-wording and re-validation for every single product category studied, creating methodological friction in large-scale studies spanning dozens of fast-moving product lines.

Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) designed INNOPROD to resolve this tension by establishing a mid-range construct: consumer innovativeness targeted specifically at product trial across the packaged goods sector. The clinical and research applications of the scale include:

• Econometric Modeling of Trial Probabilities: Serving as a key individual-level covariate within hierarchical hazard models, proportional hazard survival models, and binary probit/logit purchase incidence frameworks.
• Market Segmentation: Identifying consumer segments characterized by high exploratory tendencies and low brand inertia who are most receptive to promotional sampling, introductory coupons, and novel product claims.
• Testing Behavioral Interventions: Evaluating how informational interventions, packaging cues, and claims of technological or sensory novelty interact with an individual’s innate willingness to test unfamiliar market alternatives.
• Investigating the Intention-Behavior Gap: Comparing stated psychological openness to novelty against objective scanner-panel checkout records over longitudinal periods.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the INNOPROD scale is Consumer Innovativeness for Product Trial. Within psychometrics and consumer psychology, innovativeness is conceptualized at multiple levels of abstraction: innate (a generalized personality trait across all life domains), domain-specific (interest and adoption behavior confined to a specific product category such as fashion or personal technology), and behavioral (manifest purchase actions). INNOPROD operationalizes innovativeness at the behavioral-dispositional level, capturing a generalized tendency toward exploratory product acquisition in consumer packaged goods.

The construct encompasses several distinct psychological facets that operate in concert to drive early trial behavior:

5.1. Curiosity and Openness to Novel Sensory and Functional Attributes

At its core, product trial innovativeness reflects cognitive and sensory curiosity. Consumers who score high on INNOPROD display an intrinsic appetite for experiencing new flavors, scents, formulas, packaging technologies, and functional benefits. Rather than perceiving unfamiliar product attributes as confusing or undesirable, high-innovativeness consumers assign positive utility to the novelty itself. For example, when encountering an unfamiliar functional beverage or an alternative laundry detergent formulation, the innovative consumer experiences cognitive intrigue that overrides habitual preference patterns.

5.2. Exploratory Buying Behavior and Variety Seeking

The construct reflects a fundamental dimension of exploratory buying behavior, as articulated in consumer psychology by Raju (1980) and Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996). Unlike habitual buyers who exhibit high brand inertia and adhere strictly to a pre-defined consideration set, consumers characterized by high product-trial innovativeness actively seek departure from routine. Their exploratory tendencies manifest not merely as switching among established legacy brands, but specifically as entering the market space of untested, emergent brand entities.

5.3. Perceived Risk Tolerance and Uncertainty Reduction

Purchasing a newly launched product inherently carries multiple forms of risk: financial risk (wasting household capital on an ineffective product), functional risk (the product failing to perform its intended task), and psychological risk (dissatisfaction or regret). INNOPROD captures a psychological orientation characterized by reduced vulnerability to consumer risk aversion. Highly innovative trial consumers possess greater confidence in their capacity to evaluate novel options and display an elevated threshold for ambiguity, viewing the cost of a failed trial as negligible relative to the hedonic reward of discovery.

5.4. Social Differentiation and Self-Perception as an Early Adopter

Although consumer packaged goods represent low-involvement items relative to automobiles or consumer electronics, product trial in grocery environments still serves an identity-signaling function. Consumers who score high on INNOPROD frequently perceive themselves as opinion leaders and trendsetters within their peer groups or households. They derive positive social self-esteem from being the first among their associates to know about, purchase, and critique newly launched brands.

6. Theoretical Framework

The INNOPROD scale is grounded in three foundational theoretical traditions within behavioral psychology and consumer science: the Diffusion of Innovations Theory, the Optimum Stimulation Level (OSL) Theory, and the Theory of Exploratory Consumer Behavior.

6.1. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 1962, 2003)

Everett M. Rogers’ seminal diffusion framework posits that individuals within a social system do not adopt innovations simultaneously; rather, they adopt in a temporal sequence that follows a normal bell-shaped distribution over time. Rogers classified adopters into five structural categories: Innovators (2.5%), Early Adopters (13.5%), Early Majority (34%), Late Majority (34%), and Laggards (16%). Innovators are theoretically defined by venturesomeness, a desire for the rash, the daring, and the risky, and an eagerness to test new concepts outside their local peer group.

Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) leveraged Rogers’ diffusion framework to argue that in mass consumer markets, the traditional sociological definition of innovators must be translated into an individual-difference psychological measure. The INNOPROD scale measures the specific cognitive and behavioral readiness of an individual to assume the role of an “Innovator” or “Early Adopter” specifically within the context of market launches of packaged consumer goods.

6.2. Optimum Stimulation Level (OSL) Theory (Berlyne, 1960; Raju, 1980)

Psychologist Daniel Berlyne established that organisms maintain an internal, preferred level of neurological stimulation, termed the Optimum Stimulation Level (OSL). When environmental stimulation falls below this baseline, individuals experience boredom and engage in exploratory behavior to elevate arousal; when environmental stimulation excessively exceeds the optimum, individuals experience tension and seek familiar, reassuring stimuli to reduce arousal.

Subsequent psychometric work by Raju (1980) and Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992, 1995) demonstrated that OSL represents a core determinant of consumer tendencies such as risk taking, variety seeking, and curiosity-motivated product exploration. In Steenkamp and Gielens’ theoretical framework, the INNOPROD scale functions as the behavioral instantiation of an individual’s elevated OSL within the commercial retail environment: consumers with high stimulation baselines use grocery shopping as an arena for exploratory stimulation by purchasing unfamiliar, newly introduced items.

6.3. Exploratory Buying Behavior Tendencies (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 1996)

Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996) conceptualized exploratory consumer behavior into two overarching dimensions: Exploratory Acquisition of Products (EAP) and Exploratory Information Seeking (EIS). EAP involves buying innovative products, seeking variety, and changing familiar consumption patterns to achieve sensory or cognitive stimulation. INNOPROD refines the broader EAP construct by isolating the explicit behavioral milestone of initial product trial, establishing a psychometrically direct measure of the consumer’s propensity to convert curiosity into commercial checkout action.

7. Validity

The INNOPROD scale has undergone rigorous empirical validation across multiple behavioral and psychometric studies, establishing strong evidence of construct, predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity.

7.1. Predictive and Behavioral Validity

The most compelling validation of INNOPROD lies in its predictive validity against objective, longitudinal behavioral data. In their landmark study, Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) matched psychometric survey responses from female household heads with actual universal product code (UPC) scanner-panel transaction records captured across a comprehensive grocery panel over a two-year observation period. The panel tracked the market entries of over 100 new consumer packaged goods across multiple categories (e.g., food, beverages, household cleaners, personal care).

Using hierarchical proportional hazard models, the authors demonstrated that individual INNOPROD scores significantly predicted both the likelihood of trial ($p < .001$) and the speed of trial ($p < .01$). Even after controlling for household size, income, age, education, category purchase frequency, and in-store promotional exposure (e.g., feature ads, displays, temporary price cuts), a one standard deviation increase in INNOPROD elevated the baseline trial probability of a new product introduction by a statistically and managerially significant margin.

7.2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by examining the correlations between INNOPROD and established psychometric inventories measuring related motivational constructs. As theoretically anticipated, INNOPROD exhibits significant positive correlations with:

• General Exploratory Buying Behavior Tendencies (EAP) ($r = .62$ to $.71, p < .001$)
• Arousal Seeking and Optimum Stimulation Level scales (such as the Change Seeker Index) ($r = .45$ to $.56, p < .001$)
• Goldsmith and Hofacker’s (1991) Domain-Specific Innovativeness Scale ($r = .52$ to $.64, p < .001$)

The magnitude of these coefficients confirms that while INNOPROD shares substantial variance with broader sensation seeking and innovativeness frameworks, it retains distinct identity as a targeted product-trial metric.

7.3. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated via Average Variance Extracted (AVE) comparisons using the Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The AVE of the INNOPROD latent factor systematically exceeds its squared correlations with related consumer traits, including:

• Price Consciousness / Deal Proneness: Demonstrating that innovative trial is driven by novelty seeking rather than opportunistic coupon redemption ($r < .15, p > .05$).
• Brand Loyalty / Inertia: Exhibiting a moderate negative correlation ($r = -.38, p < .01$), confirming that INNOPROD captures the willingness to disrupt habitual loyalty patterns.
• General Sensation Seeking: Demonstrating that INNOPROD specifically isolates retail acquisition behaviors rather than physical, extreme-sport, or social thrill seeking.

8. Reliability

The INNOPROD scale exhibits high internal consistency reliability and temporal stability across diverse household samples and demographic strata.

8.1. Internal Consistency

In the primary empirical validation conducted by Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) on a representative consumer sample ($N = 1,770$ households), the eight-item INNOPROD scale demonstrated high internal consistency:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): Reported at .84, well above the standard academic threshold of .70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for established behavioral instruments.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Estimated via structural equation modeling at .86, confirming that the latent variable accounts for the vast majority of shared item variance.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): Calculated at approximately .46 to .52 across estimation samples, reflecting solid convergent capture of the underlying construct across the eight operational indicators.
• Corrected Item-Total Correlations: All eight items displayed item-total correlations exceeding .48, with the majority falling between .55 and .72, indicating that each item contributes meaningfully to the composite construct without redundancy.

8.2. Test-Retest Reliability and Invariance

Subsequent methodological applications employing longitudinal split-sample designs have shown stable test-retest correlations over multi-month intervals ($r_{tt} > .75$), confirming that INNOPROD captures an enduring behavioral disposition rather than a fleeting situational mood state. Furthermore, multi-group confirmatory factor analyses have substantiated metric and scalar measurement invariance across key demographic subgroups, including different household income levels, education brackets, and age cohorts.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the INNOPROD scale has been evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within structural equation modeling environments (e.g., LISREL, Mplus, AMOS).

9.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal axis factoring with promax and varimax rotations on validation samples yielded an unambiguous single-factor solution:

• The primary factor accounts for over 48% of the total variance among the items prior to rotation.
• The scree plot displays a sharp elbow after the first eigenvalue (eigenvalue 1 > 3.80; eigenvalue 2 < 0.90), confirming that the construct is fundamentally unidimensional.
• No cross-loading anomalies emerge; all eight items load cleanly onto the primary product trial innovativeness factor.

9.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In CFA testing, the unidimensional model demonstrates satisfactory global fit to the empirical data across standard goodness-of-fit indices:

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) for the eight items are uniformly positive, robust, and statistically significant at $p < .001$, ranging from .61 to .83. These loadings confirm that each item functions as an effective indicator of the latent trial propensity construct.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the INNOPROD instrument are detailed below:

• Test Type: Self-administered psychometric questionnaire / behavioral disposition rating scale.
• Domain: Consumer psychology, exploratory buying behavior, new product marketing, consumer packaged goods (CPG).
• Administration Format: Pen-and-paper survey, computerized online questionnaire, or mobile survey interface.
• Number of Items: 8 items.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale with standardized semantic anchors:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Estimated Completion Time: 2 to 4 minutes.
• Target Population: Adult consumers, primary grocery shoppers, household purchase decision-makers.
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Ensure any negatively worded reverse-scored items are inverted prior to composite calculations (e.g., $1
    ightarrow 5, 2
    ightarrow 4, 3
    ightarrow 3, 4
    ightarrow 2, 5
    ightarrow 1$).
  • Composite Mean Score: Sum the item scores and divide by 8 (yielding a score range of 1.00 to 5.00), representing the respondent’s continuous index of product trial innovativeness.
  • Summed Score: Sum the raw item scores (yielding a range of 8 to 40). Higher values reflect higher behavioral readiness to try new products and novel brands.
  • Latent Variable Modeling: Incorporate the eight indicators directly as observed continuous variables loading onto an unobserved latent variable in structural equation modeling (SEM) software.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Publication Year: 2003.
• Original Publication: Journal of Marketing, Volume 67, Issue 4, pages 1–22.
• Copyright Holder: American Marketing Association (AMA) / SAGE Publications.
• Usage Rights and Academic Fee: The INNOPROD scale items are published within the scholarly literature for academic, non-commercial educational, and scientific research purposes without royalty fees, provided proper citation of the original Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) article is provided.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial market research firms, corporate brand owners, and management consultancies seeking to integrate the instrument into proprietary commercial diagnostic batteries should consult the copyright guidelines of the American Marketing Association or obtain explicit permissions via the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).

12. References

Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1996). Exploratory consumer buying behavior: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00037-1

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-000

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726497

Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1086/208701

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship to personality, demographics, and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1086/208815

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1086/209313

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Development and cross-cultural validation of a short form of CSI as a measure of optimum stimulation level. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(94)00018-U

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Gielens, K. (2003). Consumer and market drivers of the trial probability of new consumer packaged goods. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.4.1.18685

13. Items of the Scale