Airport Passenger’s Perceived Innovativeness Explaining the Effect of Pursuit Benefits on Intention of Adoption:

According to (Day, 1990; Peter and Olson, 1996), a product can be defined from the consumer's perspective as a package of benefits and values. Therefore, "people are less concerned with the technical characteristics of a product or service than with the benefits that are gained from buying, using or consuming it" (Hooley and Sanders, 1993). As a result, consumers have inevitably different consumption intentions (Dogan and Erdogan, 2020). Increasingly, marketers realized that airport passengers were purchasing a set of benefits in addition to the items they purchased. Both quality of service and facility investment for airport passengers are important (Park, 2017). In this regard, efforts to subdivide the market into the benefits desired by airport passengers are underway. Market segmentation based on the pursuit of benefits requires that airport passengers pursue benefits in specific product categories. For those seeking benefits, there are several attributes that they should look for. Continuously maintain customer relationships and loyal customers are important. Therefore, positive sensitivity of customers is required (Kim et al., 2020).

A benefit is defined by Park (2018) as a specific outcome that meets a consumer's needs. Airport passengers are expected to benefit from a variety of outcomes, including functional, psychological, and social benefits. Thus, airport passenger pursuit benefits may influence actual selection (Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis, 1986). The product, on the other hand, comes with a number of benefits. A study by Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) categorizes the five factors influencing consumer choice behavior: functional benefit, social benefit, emotional benefit, cognitive benefit, and conditional benefit. In contrast, the listed benefits seem too general, potential, and not specific enough for individual use. More comprehensive than a package of five product benefits, Lai (1994) shows a typology of product benefits that might be generated from the possession or consumption of consumers. Our classification of airport passenger benefits was based on Park (2018): where, 1) Functional benefit is associated with consumption-related motives for finding products that address functional problems; 2) Symbolic benefit refers to an internal desire generated by a defined group, role, or ego image; and, 3) Experiential benefit refers to the desire for products that provide sensuous pleasure, diversity, and cognitive stimulation.

The latest products in a competitive market always provide features, services, styles, and other attributes in addition to their basic benefits. Among the strategies used by airport marketers to attract passengers is to design products with combinations of certain consumption values. Innovation can be described as the willingness to use technology, as described by Roger (1995). It reflects the willingness of a firm to receive a new concept or an innovative product. In the meantime, perceived innovativeness is also a critical factor that influences adoption behavior, especially for new technologies (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998). Airport passengers' interest in innovative models and technologies is very cautious. Approach and analyze product advertisements (Jan et al., 2019; Scarpi, 2021). Airport passengers' perceived innovativeness refers to the tendency of individuals to embrace innovations in the social system before other members. An innovator is an airport passenger who is open to new experiences and new stimuli.

Among the core elements of Rogers' 1995 theory of innovation diffusion are consumer perceptions of innovativeness, relative advantage, suitability, and practicality to facilitate acceptance of innovation, and complexity to reduce the rate of acceptance (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Based on this study and previous studies (Ali, Krapfel, and LaBahn, 1995; Veryzer, 1998a, 1998b; Robertson, 1967; Waarts, Van Everdingen, and Van Hillegersberg, 2002), we can summarize the sources of innovation into three categories, which include relative advantage, technology capability, and consumption patterns change request. First of all, relative advantage refers to innovation acceptance in terms of passenger perceptions and experiences (Ali et al., 1995; Veryzer, 1998a). Secondly, technology capability means improving the extent of the limitations of the original product through new technologies (Veryzer, 1998b). Thirdly, the request for a change in consumption patterns is that the innovation of products should be influenced by consumers’ thoughts and actions (Robertson, 1967; Waarts et al., 2002). Passengers at highly innovative airports will seek new experiences in purchasing products in order to maximize their experience benefits. They can expect to see a large degree of diversity in their pursuit of diversity. Agarwal and Prasad (1998) explain how perceived innovativeness influences perceptions in the decision to adopt a behavior. Hence, higher perceived innovativeness leads to a heightened sense of diversity, experience, symbolism, and the pursuit of practicality. Thus we suggest that the higher these three angles of airport passenger perception of innovativeness (PI) are, the stronger the positive relationship between airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) and intention of adoption (IA).

An individual's behavioral intention is a subjective perception of a specific behavior. And it is actually a determining factor of usage behavior (Yi, Jackson, Park, and Probst, 2006). Understanding airport passengers’ behavioral intention to embrace innovation has become a key issue. Through the decisions made and the resulting personal judgment, airport passengers are encouraged to adopt innovation. In the study, the effect on the behavioral intention of airline passengers was identified. Information demand, trust, and attitude were analyzed (Kim et al., 2017). Due to airport passengers' positive evaluation of benefits, marketers must realize that airport passengers' innovation acceptance intention will be affected by the collection of pursuit benefits (Levitt, 2004). In order to determine how airport passengers view upcoming products, it looks at the process and structure of how airport passengers value the product. Thus, it is very relevant to reflect on the perception of innovativeness, provide airport passengers with expected benefits and study the relationship between airport passenger benefits and adoption intentions. It is imperative to incorporate airport passengers' perceived benefits and intentions for adoption into the assessment of their perceived innovativeness. Based on consumption behavior analysis, we propose a framework for the effect of airport passenger pursuits on the intention of adoption with the mediating role of perceived innovativeness. Airport passenger perception of innovation will certainly affect the relationship between pursuit benefits and adoption intention among airport passengers. Therefore, we develop hypotheses 1, and 2 as follows:

Personal need for structure (PNS) is initially described as a situationally induced tendency (Kruglanski, 1989, 2004). PNS is a dispositional variable that captures chronic differences between individuals. The PNS scale was created specifically in an attempt to capture, as a chronic individual motive, several aspects of the desire for simple structure (Thompson et al., 2001).

In accordance with (Thompson et al., 2001), the stress associated with encountering new and ill-defined situations is likely to be stronger for those who have a strong PNS. A high PNS limits the flexibility of thinking and creative performance. The reason is the heuristic approach’s decision-making process, which freezes what has already been decided. Thus, higher PNS is associated with a tendency to organize information in simple ways, stereotyping, and a relatively large tendency to form spontaneous trait inferences (Neuberg and Newsom, 1993). The ability to engage in creative behavior is an effective way to respond to the environment before it has been structured. Therefore, individuals who reject the environment before it is structured are less likely to react creatively. Creativity is influenced by perceived innovativeness and personal motivation. Thus, individuals with high PNS characteristics do not like unclear developments. Therefore, there is a lack of motivation to solve the situation and problem before it is structured.

Previous research has suggested that PNS is negatively related to creative performance (Neuberg and Newsom, 1993; Rietzschel, De Dreu, and Nijstad, 2007). Following Rietzschel et al. (2007), people who have a high need for structure are less flexible in their thinking. They are, however, more perseverant, more focused, produce more (a higher level of fluency), and ultimately generate more original ideas than those with low structure requirements. Based on previous empirical evidence, we argue that a higher personal need for structure (PNS) is related to lower levels of airport passenger perceived innovativeness, that is, PNS has a negative effect on PB and PI. Thus, we develop hypothesis 3 as follows:

To sum up, we aim to empirically test the relationship between PB, PI, and IA and further explore the moderating role of personal need for structure between these relationships. According to the integration of the above hypothesis, this study can be described by the following research model (see Fig. 1):

Fig. 1. Research model

Download Original Figure

A questionnaire survey method was adopted to test the above hypotheses. We selected test subjects with experience using innovative facilities at Incheon International Airport, which has representation and advancement and provides sufficient convenience for airport passengers. Samples are collected mainly from young people around the age of 20-30, as they have a higher awareness of accepting new objects.

Through the use of an online survey platform (wjx.cn), all respondents are selected using non-probability sampling. The data collection period is from July 5 to 29, 2022. The final sample comprises 330 participants, and 31 incomplete responses were removed. Therefore, at least 299 responses were used for analysis. Demographic characteristics are analyzed using SPSS statistical analysis of the sample (see Table 1) as follows:

In order to compile measurement items, we reviewed the available literature to compile measurement items. The Airport Passenger Pursuit Benefits (PB) is comprised of 12 items based on Park et al. (1986) such as practicality, convenience, usability; differentiation, superiority, confidence; divertissement, fun, and diversity. Airport passenger perceived innovativeness (PI) is composed of 12 elements developed by Ali et al. (1995) and Waarts et al. (2002). These elements include relative needs, better performance, distinctive characteristics; use of professional technology, latest technology, know-how about technology; using the same techniques in the same situation; usual habits, and appropriate level. The intention of adoption (IA) is measured by 4 items created by Robertson (1967) and Waarts et al. (2002), including acceptance of innovation intent, purchase intent, the first consideration, and intention of publicity surrounding it. Personal need for structure (PNS) is formed by 12 items developed by Neuberg and Newsom (1993). All constructs were measured by the average of the responses, on a 5-point Likert scale (1-“strongly disagree”) and (5-“strongly agree”) for each self-determination need.

The descriptive statistics in Table 2 show basic information on each factor and correlations among these factors.

Analysis of AMOS is subjected to factor analysis and reliability analysis to verify the validity and reliability of the measurement items. As shown in Table 3, the reliability of all reflective measures indicates the scales are internally reliable (Nunnally, 1978). As a result, Cronbach's α is above 0.80 in the measurements of the parameters, indicating good internal consistency and reliability. The results show high internal consistency and a high level of reliability. We also employ the validity test for convergent validity and discriminatory validity. The SFL (standardized factor loading) of all reflective measures is above the 0.70 level and the CR (constructive reliability) is above the 0.70 level. All reflective measures have high AVEs (average variance extracted >0.50). Based on the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, x²=1,645.244 (p=0.00, df=499), RMR= 0.045, GFI=0.856, AGFI=0.833, PGFI=0.851, CFI=0.902, RMSEA=0.043. The model fit criteria used in this study were all found to be acceptable (Hair et al., 2006).

Hypothesis testing is carried out by regression analysis to determine the factors that influence the dependent variable.

The main effect results are listed as shown in Table 4. In order to validate hypothesis 1, we run the first model that taps the first-order airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) including functional, symbolic, and experiential benefits. R²=0.486, F=94.863, sig=0.000, which indicates that the model fits sufficiently well. Functional benefits (β=0.103^*, p<0.05), symbolic benefits (β=0.329^***, p<0.001), and experiential benefits (β=0.409^***, p<0.001) are all positively related to the intention of adoption (IA) which supports H1. Among the results, experiential benefits have the greatest positive effect on the intention of adoption (IA) (Table 5).

Mediation test: To verify hypothesis 2, we assessed the proposed mediation effect in structural modeling analysis. We ran the analysis and found that through airport passenger perceived innovativeness (PI), airport passenger pursuit benefits (PB) were significantly associated with intention of adoption (IA). We used the bootstrap procedure analysis by Hayes (2013) as PROCESS Model 4. This method indicates that the indirect effects of the parameter are significant when 0 is positioned outside the confidence interval of 95% of the confidence interval extracted by the bootstrap procedure analysis. Indirect effect=0.285, Boot SE=0.056, LL95% CI=0.187, UL95% CI=0.406. Thus, we conclude that PI indirectly affects the relationship between PB and IA which supports H2.

Moderating effect: To test the proposed moderating effects of personal need for structure (PNS) hypothesis 3, we also used bootstrap procedure analysis by Hayes (2013) as PROCESS Model 7. First, we tested the interaction effect of PB multiplied by PNS, which is related to the PI (β=0.056^***, p<0.001). Next, we examined the moderating effect of PNS. Table 6 shows that the result of low group PNS (0.187) is higher than high group PNS (0.172), which indicates that the positive effect of PB on PI strengthens as PNS becomes lower.