Innovativeness behavior may directly influence contexts concerning consumer behavior and in particular the purchasing adoption process. In this context, consumers have become progressively more demanding, particularly regarding the launch of electrical and electronic products and in this case, innovation eventually becomes a major motivation for innovativeness behavior.

Robertson (1967), in his work, describes that behavioral scientists in the 1960s, devoted much attention to the innovation theme, although various contemporary writers stimulated a number of discussions on creativity, particularly on how the creative process occurs within itself. Schumpeter (1942) states that anthropologist HG Barnett depicted innovation as the basis for culture changes, and defines innovation as “any new thought or behavior”.

Over the years, the concept of innovation began to be appreciated according to the perspective of each study. Some authors such as Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) as well as Rogers (1995) defined innovation as the uniqueness or novelty of the product and from the moment consumers start to adopt these products, a direct relationship is established, originating a consumer innovativeness behavior.

Innovativeness behavior may be directly related to the culture innovation capacity within a given group, resulting a positive effect on an individual´s innovation capacity (Batory & Neese, 2005). When a group culture is approachable to new ideas, individuals may be associated with higher levels of innovation (Hugh & Mcdonald, 1996; Tajeddini, Trueman, & Larsen, 2006).

Dijk et. al (2014) report that innovation changes the way a brand is perceived by consumers. The explanation for that indirect effects shows that the advantages developed by the new products are better valued by consumers, compared to existing products, generating the consumer innovativeness behavior.

Based on the literature reviewed on consumer innovativeness behavior, according to lessons given by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) and Rogers (1995), it has been possible to verify that such behavior is influenced by numerous elements that actually comprise the consumption behavior. This behavior characterizes the way consumers purchase innovative products in a period relatively sooner than other individuals. Therefore, the following research hypothesis is proposed.

H1 - The greater the consumer innovativeness behavior, the greater the influence on the purchasing intention of innovative products.

Purchasing adoption process is described as the manner in which consumers adopt a new product, service or innovation. It is a constant theme in most correlated articles, as well as in major consumer behavior studies (Strader & Hendrickson, 2001; Caro, Mazzon, & Caemmerer, 2010). Within this context, consumers have a consumption need which must be satisfied and initiate a series of steps referred to as “decision making process” or “purchasing adoption process” (Horn, 2009).

The adoption process steps of new products start from the identification of a given problem or need and continues with a search for information from different media. After that, there is an evaluation of alternatives, when the attributes of the products are compared, followed by the purchase itself, consumption, post-purchase evaluation, during which consumers perceive the need to repurchase and share their experiences with other people; and finally, the disposal (Strader & Hendrickson, 2001; Caro et al. 2010).

For this reason, Jain and Srinivasan (1990) stress that a decision to adopt purchasing of innovative products varies from one individual to another, according to their individual features, such as demographic (age, gender, location etc.), socioeconomic (income, social class), psychographic (personality, open mind) and cultural (ethnic, value system) data. Furthermore, other factors eventually directly influence the decision-making process, such as relevance, the symbolic value, the significance of risk and the probability of risk. In order to identify the influence of the purchasing adoption process on the planned obsolescence process, the following research hypothesis is proposed.

H2 - The greater the intention to purchase innovative products, the greater the influence on the planned obsolescence process.

There are numerous factors which have contributed to the development of the planned obsolescence process, among which a gain of prominence of technological innovation and launching of innovative products that have created a new concept of behavior, the consumer innovativeness behavior.

According to Bulow (1986), planned obsolescence is the production of consumer goods with an artificially limited useful life by reducing the time between repeat purchases. Planned obsolescence is a sort of trading, which reduces the value of older models in favor of a new product line (Utaka, 2000; Marez & Verleye, 2004).

The connection among innovation, creation of new markets and entrepreneur action is unmistakably defined by Schumpeter (1997), as the organization which initiates economic change from the creative destruction, namely the replacement of old products and consumption habits by new ones, being characterized as economic development in organizations. Lizuka (2007) states that obsolescence happens when products become old-fashioned or “outdated”.

The results of the study of Dijk et al (2014) provide strong evidence in support of innovation as a marketing strategy. The firms that innovate in their products or create improved ones, they are in fact, more valued by the costumers. In this connection, the marketing should obtain all knowledge involving the behavior of these consumers by guiding communication, and making it an effective source of competitive strategy. The various segments of the purchasing adoption process must be understood beforehand, therefore decreasing efforts related to communication and marketing (Bulow, 1986; Lizuka, 2007).

In order to evaluate the consumer´s perception about the planned obsolescence process, the Model of Diffusion of Innovations (MDI), recommended by Rogers (1983) was used, and the following research hypothesis is proposed.

H3: The greater the planned obsolescence process, the greater the influence on consumer innovativeness behavior.

Table 01 shows the correlation among indicators of the innovativeness behavior, the commonality extracted in each indicator and also the factor loadings achieved in the extracted factors.

Table 1
Factor analysis of the innovativeness behavior construct.

Survey conducted (2013).

It may be noted that all indicators demonstrate positive correlations. With respect to commonalities, Q01, Q02 and Q09 are below 0.5, whereas the commonality represents the amount of variance explained by the factor solution for each variable, which should preferably be above 0.5 (Hair Júnior, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2005). Therefore, it was decided to exclude these items. After exclusion, the factor analysis was remade, and KMO´s (Kaiser-Meier-Olkin) and BST´s values (Bartlett´s test of sphericity) were analyzed. The first showed a value of 0.758. Hair Júnior et al. (2005) claim that values must exceed 0.70 as a minimum acceptable index. Whereas BTS´s test showed 782.132 and significance 0.000. Both presented validity for continuity in the application.

Table 2 shows the correlation among indicators of the purchasing adoption process, the commonality extracted in each indicator and also the factor loadings achieved in the extracted factors.

Table 2
Factor analysis of the purchasing adoption process construct.

Survey conducted (2013).

Most cases show positive correlations, except among items Q11 x Q16, Q11 x Q17. With respect to commonalities, Q10 and Q11 are below 0.5. Therefore, it was decided to exclude these items. After exclusion of commonalities showing values below the expectation, the factor analysis was remade, and KMO´s (Kaiser-Meier-Olkin) and BST´s (Bartlett´s test of sphericity) were analyzed. The first showed a value of 0.684 and the second showed 496.845 and significance 0.000. Both presented validity for continuity in the application.

Table 3 shows the correlation among indicators of the planned obsolescence process, the commonality extracted in each indicator and also the factor loadings achieved in the extracted factors.

Table 3
Factor analysis of the planned obsolescence process construct.

Survey conducted (2013).

Indicators displayed in Table 3 show positive correlations with the others, commonalities are also in correlation, because each variable represents the amount of variance explained by the factor solution for each variable. In this case, all items of the construct were kept. KMO´s values were analyzed, with a value of 0.915, and BST, 2249.357, with significance 0.000. Both presented validity for continuity in the application.

Table 4 shows results for adjustment indexes for absolute measurements comprising values of chi-square, chi-square divided by the degree of freedom and root mean square error of approximation (RMSA). Adjustments of incremental measures CFI, NFI and TLI are also shown, after confirmatory factor analysis of the innovativeness behavior, as well as achievement of the correlation adjustment among items of the construct.

Table 4
Model adjustment indexes of the innovativeness behavior.

Survey conducted (2013).

After rotation of the model and completion of the required adjustments, it was found that measures of absolute adjustments fit into the expected values, taking into consideration that the degree of freedom achieved weight 6, chi-square divided by the degree of freedom showed a value of 2.980, while, according to Hair Júnior et al. (2005), in order for the model to be validated, the value should be below 3.000. RMSA showed an index lower than 0.100 and measures of incremental adjustments (NFI, CFI and TLI) also achieved minimum expected indexes, ratifying the validation of the innovativeness behavior construct.

Table 5 shows standardized regression coefficients for the innovativeness behavior construct, taking into consideration that 0.500 is the lowest accepted value for standardized loadings, so that the indicator is kept as a construct reflective item (FAVERO et al. 2009).

Table 5
Standardized regression coefficients and significance test of the innovativeness behavior.

Survey conducted (2013).

Question Q04, which obtained a value equal to 0.636, was the question with the lowest value found. With these results, all questions were kept once these are higher than 0.500, which is the minimum expected value. Therefore, all construct questions were approved in the significance test.

Table 6 shows indicators after confirmatory factor analysis of the purchasing adoption process, as well as achievement of the correlation adjustment among items of the construct.

Table 6
Model adjustment indexes of the purchasing adoption process.

Survey conducted (2013).

After the rotation of the model, it was found that measures of absolute adjustments fit into the expected values, taking into consideration that the degree of freedom achieved weight 7, chi-square divided by the degree of freedom showed a value of 2.724, RMSA showed an index lower than 0.100 and measures of incremental adjustments (NFI, CFI and TLI) also achieved minimum expected indexes (0.968, 0.979 and 0.938), ratifying the validation of the purchasing adoption process construct.

In the first regression and significance test it was found that questions Q16 and Q17, achieved values lower than 0.500, and were removed from the construct to a new confirmatory factor analysis showing the following indicators: chi-square (10.703); degree of freedom (4); chi-square divided by the degree of freedom (2.676); RMSA (0.061); NFI (0.982); CFI (0.988); TLI (0.939). Such indexes ratify the validation of the purchasing adoption process construct.

Table 7 shows standardized regression coefficients for the construct after exclusion of questions with coefficients lower than 0.500.

Table 7
Standardized regression coefficients and significance test of the purchasing adoption process after exclusion of negative coefficients.

Survey conducted (2013).

According to Table 7, all construct questions were approved in the significance test, validating the final model of the purchasing adoption process construct. Table 8 shows results after the confirmatory factor analysis of the planned obsolescence process construct.

Table 8
Model adjustment indexes of the planned obsolescence process.

Survey conducted (2013).

After a model rotation of the planned obsolescence process construct and accomplishment of required adjustments, it was found that measures of absolute adjustments fit into the expected values, and the degree of freedom achieved weight 32. Table 9 shows values of chi-square divided by the degree of freedom (2.991), RMSA (0.067), being lower than the maximum measure allowed, measures of incremental adjustments NFI (0.958), CFI (0.971) and TLI (0.951), ratifying the validation of the planned obsolescence process construct.

Table 9
Standardized regression coefficients and significance test of the planned obsolescence process.

Survey conducted (2013).

As shown in Table 9, all questions were kept, while the lowest coefficient found was question Q25, with a value of 0.923. Therefore, all construct questions were approved in the significance test.

The proposed structural model was tested and accepted by exploratory factor analysis, as well as by confirmatory factor analysis. All indicators were tested and standardized for a better definition of the studied model. Figure 1 displays the simulation of the proposed model, showing indicators of each construct of the study.

Figure 1
Final model.
Survey conducted (2013).

After rotation of the final model and increase of covariances indicated by software AMOS (16 ↔ 17), (08 ↔ 10), (03 ↔ 06), Table 10 shows again results for adjustment indexes of absolute chi-square measurements, chi-square divided by the degree of freedom, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSA), as well as adjustments of incremental measures CFI, NFI and TLI, after confirmatory factor analysis, this time, with all indexes with values higher than the expectations.

Table 10
Final model adjustment indexes.

Survey conducted (2013).

This paper focusing the influence of consumer innovativeness behavior on planned obsolescence process has 22 indicators, but complies with expected minimum parameters of five respondents by indicator, the minimum for model validation amounts to 110 respondents. In view of this, as far as this study is concerned, the sample size reached 448, which confirmed its quality.

When analyzing the indexes shown, it was found that such indexes display adjustment levels above expectations, therefore representing the model in an effective way.

The following shows the research hypotheses testing. Table 11 displays results taken from the final model by using software AMOS 2.0.

Table 11
Validation of hypotheses.

Survey conducted (2013).

Table 11 shows that hypothesis 01 was confirmed, because indeed the consumer innovativeness behavior influences the purchasing adoption process. It happens on the account that, once consumers identify a new product on the market, they are attracted and seek the required information and, based on that, a need or desire may be established, and then the purchasing adoption process starts.

The above can also be confirmed by Engel, Blackwell and Miniard. (1995), who stated that when an innovative product is launched on the market, consumers become aware, know their features and learn about them, decide on making the purchase and when to do it.

Hypothesis 2 was also ascertained, as the purchasing adoption process influences the planned obsolescence process. This is due to the fact that it is from the purchasing adoption process that companies will have an idea of the product acceptance on the market, thus being possible to plan the launching of new models with enhanced versions. Consumers, in turn, also recognize this factor, knowing that from the time of purchase of a commodity within a few months there will be a new model, with differentiated design and other added benefits. A decision to purchase the new product will be based on the current needs and stimuli brought about. According to Caro et al. (2010), among these stimuli, are cultural, social, personal and psychological factors caused by marketing stimuli and other stimuli related to the environment in which the individual is inserted.

Hypothesis 3 was not ascertained, because it achieved an index lower than 0.5, (0.452). In this case, it can be asserted that concerning respondents, the planned obsolescence process does not directly influence the consumer innovativeness behavior. Consumers are fully aware of the fact that companies endeavor to develop new products, with new dimensions and capabilities, but understand that it is part of technological changes and all, in a sense, are designed to help people´s lives. In such a context, purchasing in most cases is performed due to the actual consumption need.