Countering pro-change bias in digital services by shedding light on non-adoption

Pro-change bias 

When new digital services are introduced, the emphasis in (consumer) research is typically on the adoption of the new service. Identifying factors that predict acceptance and use of the new service takes priority. It is trendy and important. We tend to operate with the logic that as long as we can identify and convince consumers of the benefits, or eliminate any concerns, they are interested and willing to consider the new service. This is called pro-change bias, an assumption that people are rational and in principle open to change as long as the pros outweigh the cons (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). A wide range of digital services are developed and launched with this assumption in mind. A closer look at the market development can, however, prove the opposite. For instance, studies into resistance or non-adoption of digital health services (Greenhalgh et al., 2017), e-government (Distel, 2018), mobile pay (Eriksson et al., 2021; Talwar et al., 2021), or online grocery shopping (OGS) (Klepek & Bauerová, 2020; Stenius & Eriksson, 2024) suggest that many consumers are oblivious, indifferent, or reluctant to even try the new services, for reasons that studies into service adoption cannot reveal. 

The bias is also evident in the theories used in empirical research. They typically rely on well-established behavioral theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), which are reasonable for explaining adoption of a new service, but insufficient for explaining non-adoption, which is likely to encompass many more aspects than the features of the novel service alone (Distel, 2018; Patsiotis et al., 2012). At the latest, when the market for the service stagnates and the growth slows down, we are wise to expand the lens and try to understand the extent and nature of non-adoption. This is crucially important for the success of major publicly funded initiatives, such as e-government, but it is also important within the realm of online retail. The promising growth prospects will only materialise if consumers are on board (Stenius & Eriksson, 2024). While there may be real obstacles that need fixing, consumers are not necessarily turning away from new services because they choose to, but because they may be oblivious to their existence, or simply stuck in their existing ways and reluctant to make changes, even beneficial ones. 

Behavioral paradox – an example

During Covid -19 pandemic, an increasing share of consumers started buying groceries online all over the world, and the services supporting OGS developed fast (Eriksson & Stenius, 2024). Empirical studies show that the services generate many benefits. For instance, they save time (Frank & Peschel, 2020) and money (Blitstein et al., 2020), add convenience (Driediger & Bhatiasevi, 2019), and help in meal planning (Brand et al., 2020), which we might think as important for time-constrained modern consumers. Studies with regular online shoppers further show that any concerns they may have initially had about product freshness or service quality, common barriers to OGS adoption (Klepek & Bauerová, 2020), were unfounded (Eriksson & Stenius, 2024). Nonetheless, most consumers in Europe still prefer to buy groceries in-store, even if it may mean hours of extra chores on a weekly basis. Even in the most advanced OGS markets the majority of shoppers are non-adopters (McKinsey, 2024). To understand the paradox, more studies are needed on non-adoption.

Non-adoption explained

As suggested by Stenius & Eriksson (2024), non-adoption can be explained in many ways. First, there is the concept of active resistance. Innovation resistance theory (Ram & Seth, 1989) suggests that two types of barriers underlie active resistance, namely functional and psychological. People may resist a new service because of perceived usage issues, fear of value loss, or uncertainty about the outcomes. Furthermore, they may be concerned about the image of the service, or norms relating to its use. Active resistance assumes some degree of active consideration, a weighing in of the pros and cons (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014), but people may also resist passively. It’s more subtle and develops more unconsciously, before any consideration takes place (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015). Oreg (2003) suggests that passive resistance results from our natural inclination to resist changes, but it may also stem from cognitive rigidity, fear of losing control, or reluctance toward the adjustment that the change entails. It may also reflect “status quo satisfaction”, high satisfaction with the present state of affairs, which discourages from even thinking about a change (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). In fact, people are often disproportionally attached to their prevailing practice and inclined to cognitively overvalue the positive while at the same time exaggerating the negative aspects of the change. This is called status quo bias (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988). A further reason for the difficulty to replace an old practice with a new one, is our tendency to perpetuate deep-rooted habitual behaviors. They in themselves fuel recurring behaviors because they require very little cognitive effort, and seem efficient and fast to perform (Ong, 2006).

Non-adoption of OGS investigated

Two qualitative studies (independent from each other) were recently conducted on non-adoption of OGS in Finland, one based on semi-structured interviews (Mäkela, 2024, n=8) and one on qualitative survey data (Stenius & Eriksson, 2024, n=355). The study of Stenius & Eriksson (2024) was conducted within DigiMatNorden project at Arcada UAS. The findings were very similar. Many consumers were satisfied with their present in-store shopping, concerned about additional fees and the quality of perishable goods in online shopping. Mäkela (2024), however, also found the respondents surprisingly uninformed about the online services. Similarly, many respondents in Stenius & Eriksson (2024) study said they had no need of OGS even if they had no experience of it. These may be expressions of status quo bias since the respondents did not really know what they were comparing but preferred their existing choice anyway. 

Both studies emphasised the role of existing routines and deep-rooted habits as a major hindrance for adopting, or even considering, OGS. The study of Stenius & Eriksson (2024) further suggests that reliance on in-store shopping is explained by explicit preference and awareness of existing routines, but also by implicit preference, “self-evidence” of going to a physical store if it were nearby, or if only one had the time. It was the unquestioned default choice, suggesting that the habit nurtures and sustains the behavior. For the conceptual model of non-adoption of OGS, see the full article of Stenius & Eriksson (2024). 

Conclusions

The studies presented suggest that the features of online services had less to do with non-adoption than the existing practice, its perceived benefits combined with the automaticity to repeat the existing routines, and status quo satisfaction. This exemplifies the argument that non-adoption should be studied in its own right. Studies in other areas, such as e-government, suggest the same (Distel, 2018). Companies and public sector organisations, who develop new types of digital services, especially when they require major capital expenditure and therefore substantial consumer acceptance, are likely to benefit from understanding non-adoption better.

Dr. Minna Stenius, Senior researcher, Arcada
Dr. Niklas Eriksson, Principal lecturer, Arcada

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T External link 

Blitstein, J. L., Frentz, F., & Jilcott Pitts, S. B. (2020). A mixed-method examination of reported benefits of online grocery shopping in the United States and Germany: Is health a factor?. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 26(3), 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1754313 External link 

Brand, C., Schwanen, T., & Anable, J. (2020). ‘Online Omnivores’ or ‘Willing but struggling’? Identifying online grocery shopping behavior segments using attitude theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102195 External link

Distel, B. (2018). Bringing Light into the Shadows: A Qualitative Interview Study on Citizens’ Non‑Adoption of e‑Government. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 16(2), pp98-105. 

Driediger, F., & Bhatiasevi, V. (2019). Online grocery shopping in Thailand: Consumer acceptance and usage behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 48, 224-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.02.005 External link 

Eriksson, N., Gökhan, A., & Stenius, M. (2021). A qualitative study of consumer resistance to mobile payments for in-store purchases. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 634-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.212 External link 

Eriksson, N., & Stenius, M, (2024). What explains routinized online grocery shopping? A study of experienced shoppers. Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, 53rd, 11832. Available at https://proceedings.emac-online.org/pdfs/A2024-118329.pdf External link 

Frank, D. A., & Peschel, A. O. (2020). Sweetening the deal: The ingredients that drive consumer adoption of online grocery shopping. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 26(8), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1829523 External link 

Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., Hinder, S., ... & Shaw, S. (2017). Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. Journal of medical Internet research, 19(11), e8775. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8775 External link 

Heidenreich, S., & Kraemer, T. (2015). Passive innovation resistance: The curse of innovation? Investigating consequences for innovative consumer behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 51, 134-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.09.003 External link 

Klepek, M., & Bauerová, R. (2020). Why do retail customers hesitate for shopping grocery online? Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(6), 1444-1462. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.13970… External link;
McKinsey (2024). Signs of Hope—The State of Grocery Retail 2024: Europe. McKinsey & Company. Available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/state-of-grocery-europe-2024-signs-of-hope External link 

Mäkelä, J. (2023). Deterrents of online grocery shopping: a phenomenographic study of Finnish consumer perceptions. Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä.  http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202312158352 External link 

Ong, A. (2006). The impact of disruptions on routinization of goal-directed grocery shopping behavior. Doctoral dissertation, RMIT University.

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680 External link 

Patsiotis, A. G., Hughes, T., & Webber, D. J. (2012). Adopters and non‐adopters of internet banking: a segmentation study. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(1), 20-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321211195686 External link 

Ram, S., & Sheth, J. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002542 External link 

Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564 External link 

Stenius, M., & Eriksson, N. (2024). What can we learn from non-adopters of online grocery shopping? Insights from Finland. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2024.2437663 External link 

Talke, K., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). How to overcome pro‐change bias: incorporating passive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 894-907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12130 External link 

Talwar, S., Talwar, M., Kaur, P., Singh, G., & Dhir, A. (2021). Why have consumers opposed, postponed, and rejected innovations during a pandemic? A study of mobile payment innovations. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 25. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v25i0.3201 External link