INDIVIDUAL CULTURAL FACTORS AFFECTING NEW PRODUCT ACCEPTING BEHAVIOR: THE CASE OF ELECTRONIC MARKET IN VIETNAM
Today individualized culture playes an important role in promoting acceptance consumer behavior towards new electronic products in Vietnam. The article explores the influence of individual cultural factors on the consumer accepting behavior. 600 questionnaires in total were distributed among the people residing in HCM city, Vietnam. A structural equation model (SEM) is used to analyze their consumer behavior in relation to new electronic products’ acceptance. According to the analysis of personal factors, fear of risk, innovation and collectiveness significantly influence the consumer acceptance behavior.
Dickerson, M.D. & Gentry, J.W. (1983). Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home computers. Journal of Consumer Research, 10. Pp. 225-35.
Foxall, G.R., & Goldsmith, R. (1988). Personality and consumer research: Another Look. Journal of the Market Research Society, 30 (2). Pp. 111-125.
Hofacker, C. (1991). Measuring Consumer Innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19. Pp. 1004-1116.
Hansan, H. & Ditsa, G., (1999). The impact of culture on the adoption of IT: an interpretive study. Journal of Global Information Management, 7 (1). Pp. 5–15.
Ho, W. (2011). Role of innovativeness, of consumers in relation between perceived attributes of new products and intend to adopt. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 9. Pp. 258-266.
Hofstede (2001). Culture‘s Consequences, 2nd edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holak, S.L. & Lehmann, D.R. (1990). Intention and the dimensions of innovation: an exploratory model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7. Pp. 59-73.
Hui, C.H. (1984). Individualism-Collectivism and Collectivism: Theory, Measurement, and Its Relations to Reward Allocation. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Jung, J.M, & Kellaris, J.J. (2004). Cross-national differences in proneness to scarcity affects: the moderating roles of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance and need for cognitive closure. Psychology and Marketing, 21 (9). Pp. 739–753.
McClelland, D.C. (1991). The personal value questionnaire, McBer & Company, Boston.
Midgley, D.F. & Dowling, G.R. (1978). Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4. Pp. 229-42.
Nguyen, T.T., Mai, Siok Kuan Tambyah (2011). Antecedents and consequences of status consumption among urban Vietnamese consumers. Organizations and markets in emerging economies, 1 (3).
Paswan & Hirunyawipada (2006). Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: implications for high technology product adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23/4. Pp. 182–198.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovation. 3rd edition. New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations. The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and of Human Values?. Journal of Social Issues, 50. Pp. 19-45
Sentosa, I. et al. (2012). A Structural Equation Modeling of Internet Banking Usage in Malaysia. Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce, 3 (1). Pp. 75-86.
Venkatraman, M. P. (1991). The impact of innovativeness and innovation type of adoption. Journal of Retailing, 67. Pp. 51-67.
Wang, Wenyu Dou & Nan Zhou (2006). Consumption attitudes and adoption of new consumer products: a contingency approach. European Journal of Marketing, 42, Pp. 238-254.
Wood & Swait (2002). Psychological Indicators of Innovation Adoption: Cross-Classification Based on Need for Cognition and Need for Change. Journal of consumer psychology, 12 (1). Pp. 1-13.
Yan Luo (2009). Analysis of Culture and Buyer Behavior in Chinese Market. CCSE, 1.
Yeniyurt & Townsend (2003). Does the culture explain acceptance of new products in a country? International Marketing Review. Emerad Group Limited.
International College Suan Sunandha
Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand