Ruth M. Stock, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing & HR Management

1. The Significant Impact of Personality Traits on Consumers’ Innovation Activities in Different Innovation Stages Ruth M. Stock, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing & HR Management Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany Eric von Hippel, Ph.D., Professor of Management of Innovation and Engineering Systems MIT Sloan School of Management, USA Lennart Schnarr, Ph.D. Candidate Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany —12th Annual Open and User Innovation Conference—Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA

2. Relevance: PracticalPerspective User Innovation & Diffusion Process Idea Prototype • Diffusion • commercially • peer-to-peer Idea “I don’t like to approach people and talk to them!” “I find it very difficult to get down to work to implement my ideas!” “I don’t have a vivid imagination!” Why do consumers innovate and diffuse? How can we increase levels of individual innovativeness and diffusion?

3. Relevance: Academic Perspective • Prior research has identified many factors likely to be associated with successful completion of innovation and diffusion tasks such as ... • social ties and climate for innovation(Amabile et al. 1996; Perry-Smith 2006; Scott and Bruce 1994), • technical skills,gender, andcommunity membership (Lüthje, Herstatt, and von Hippel 2005; Ogawa and Pongtanalert2013; von Hippel, de Jong, and Flowers 2012; von Hippel, Ogawa, and de Jong 2011), • and, in the case of entrepreneurship, knowledge, experience, and skills of the founder (Chandler and Jansen, 1992; Song et al. 2008). • Research has also shown that personality traits significantly affect vocational choices, creative behaviors in the workplace, and individual job performance (e.g., Barrick and Mount 1991; Feist 1998; Lounsbury et al. 2012; Zhao and Seibert 2006). However, little is known about the impact of personality on innovation and diffusion tasks carried out by individual consumers.

4. Theoretical Basis FiveFactor Model ofPersonality(“Big Five”) Five dimensions that describe “the most important ways in which individuals differ in their enduring emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational styles.” (McCrae and John 1992, p. 175) • Openness to experience • Being ... • imaginative • curious • untraditional • reflective • creative • original Extraversion Being ... gregarious assertive active energetic enthusiastic talkative Agreeableness Being ... friendly forgiving tolerant altruistic cooperative trusting Conscientious-ness Being ... persistent hardworking organized planful dutiful reliable Neuroticism Being ... nervous worrying anxious unstable depressed hostile Sources: Barrickand Mount 1991; Costa and McCrae 1992; Feist 1998; McCrae and John 1992; Zhao and Seibert 2006.

5. Study Framework Big Five Idea (no/ yes) Prototype (no/ yes) Diffusion Attempt (no/ yes, non-commercially/ yes, commercially) Resources, Demographics

6. Data Analysis Strategy Sample Composition 100 % full sample: n = 546 Consumerswithoutidea 60.8 % Consumerswithidea, not prototyped 36.1 % UI, noattemptsto diffuse 19.6 % UI, attempted p2p diffusion 12.8 % UI, attemptedcommercialdiffusion Stage 0: NoIdea Stage 1: Ideation Stage 2: Prototyping Stage 3: Diffusion Attempt Innovation Process Notes: UI = userinnovator; p2p= peer-to-peer

7. Results (1/3):Effect of Personality on Having an Idea (Stage 1) Notes: n = 541; std. errors in brackets. † p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; df = degrees of freedom.

8. Results (2/3):Effect of Personality on Building a Prototype (Stage 2) Notes: n = 327; std. errors in brackets. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; df = degrees of freedom.

9. Results (3/3):Effect of Personality on Diffusion Attempts (Stage 3) Notes: n = 192; the base category is Users with an Idea—prototyped, but no diffusion attempts; standard errors in brackets; †p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001; df = degrees of freedom.

10. Implicationsfor Practice andPolicymaking Firms and policymakers should seek to change the nature of consumer innovation tasks ... - ... from a primarily solitary one into a collaborativeeffort where individuals collectively have all the personality traits needed to successfully complete all three innovation stages. • - ... by considering the personality traits required to successfully complete each stage of the innovation process: • Creativity toolsto assist ideation • Easy to use design programs and 3D-printers to prototype • Internet platforms to diffuse and advertise

11. Implications for Academic Research Our study ... • is a first-of-type study to explore links between personality traits and successful accomplishment of three basic innovation process stages by individual consumers. • is the first in user innovation research which builds on the Five Factor Model of personality, which appears to be fruitful for this line of research. Future researchshould ... • beextendedtomorefine-grainedtraitsandinnovationtasks. • develop and test hypotheses about possible interaction with contextual factors.

12. The Significant Impact of Personality Traits on Consumers’ Innovation Activities in Different Innovation Stages Thank you for your attention! Ruth M. Stock, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing & HR Management Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany Eric von Hippel, Ph.D., Professor of Management of Innovation and Engineering Systems MIT Sloan School of Management, USA Lennart Schnarr, Ph.D. Candidate Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany —12th Annual Open and User Innovation Conference—Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA

13. Examples of New Products Developed by Users in the Sample

14. Sample Demographics (1/2)

15. Sample Demographics (2/2)

16. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and IntercorrelationsAmong Refined Measures—Ideation Stage Notes: n = 542; diagonal elements in parentheses are values of Cronbach’s alpha; † p<.10, p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001, a = dummy variable.

17. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and IntercorrelationsAmong Refined Measures—Prototyping Stage Notes: n= 326; diagonal elements in parentheses are values of Cronbach’s alpha; † p<.10, p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001, a = dummy variable.

18. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and IntercorrelationsAmong Refined Measures—Diffusion Stage Notes: n= 193; diagonal elements in parentheses are values of Cronbach’s alpha; † p<.10, p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

19. Construct Measurement (1/5)

20. Construct Measurement (2/5)

21. Construct Measurement (3/5)

22. Construct Measurement (4/5)

23. Construct Measurement (5/5)

24. References (1/2) Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal 39 (5), 1154-84. Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44 (1), 1-26. Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E., 1992. The founder's self-assessed competence and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing 7, 223-36. Costa, P.T., Jr., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Revised NEO PersonalityInventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-FactorInventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL. Feist, G.J., 1998. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2 (4), 290-309. Journal of Individual Differences 29 (1), 11-6. Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Lounsbury, J.W., Foster, N., Patel, H., Carmody, P., Gibson, L.W., Stairs, D.R., 2012. An investigation of the personality traits of scientists versus nonscientists and their relationship with career satisfaction. R&D Management 42 (1), 47-59. Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., von Hippel, E., 2005. User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy 34, 951-65. McCrae, R.R., John, O. P., 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60, 175-215. Ogawa, S., Piller, F.T., 2006. Reducing the risks of new product development. Sloan Management Review 47 (1), 189-204. Ogawa, S., Pongtanalert, K., 2013. Exploring characteristics and motives of consumer innovators: Community innovators vs. independent innovators. Research Technology Management56 (3), 41-8.

25. References (2/2) Perry-Smith, J.E., 2006. Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal 49 (1), 85-101. Scott, S.G., Bruce, R.A., 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37 (3), 580-607. Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., van der Bij, H., Halman, J.I.M., 2008. Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28, 7-27. von Hippel, E., de Jong, J.P.J., Flowers, S., 2012. Comparing business and household sector innovation in consumer products: Findings from a representative study in the UK. Management Science 58 (9), 1669-81. von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., de Jong, J.P.J., 2011. The age of the consumer-innovator, MIT Sloan Management Review 53 (1), 27-35. Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., 2006. The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology 2, 259-71.