Marketers often attempt to attract and keep customers by launching new products; however, these products face persistently high failure rates (Cooper, 2017; Nguyen & Chaudhuri, 2019). According to Cooper and Edgett (2010), the failure rate of new products is between 38% and 55%, and Victory et al. (2021) reviewed the literature and concluded that the average new product failure rate is approximately 40%. Thus, there is an urgent need to enhance understanding of how to encourage consumers to embrace new products.

Prior researchers have documented factors influencing new product acceptance, that is, the likelihood of consumers accepting or adopting a new product (Thompson & Sinha, 2008), which is represented by the preference for the new product and the attitude toward the new product (Faraji-Rad et al., 2017). These factors include individuals’ emotions (Ang et al., 2019), social influence (Chung & Lee, 2019), and cultural perspectives (e.g., cosmopolitanism, national culture; Lim & Park, 2013; Tian et al., 2018). A key cultural factor that has been found to markedly affect individuals’ behavior and attitudes is power distance belief (PDB; Hofstede, 1984), which refers to individuals’ acceptance of power disparity in society (Hofstede, 1984, 2001; Oyserman, 2006). Despite the dramatic impact this belief can have on individuals’ cognitive and affective outcomes both in and out of buying contexts, its influence on consumers’ new product acceptance remains unclear to scholars.

Indirect evidence from previous research has revealed an inconsistency between PDB and new product acceptance. For instance, Lalwani and Forcum (2016) found that consumers with high (vs. low) PDB have a greater need for structure, which is equated with the need for control (see also Cutright, 2012), and Faraji-Rad et al. (2017) found that the desire for control decreased new product acceptance. These results show that consumers with high PDB have a lower degree of new product acceptance. Other researchers have documented that consumers with high (vs. low) PDB have a greater need for status (Cui et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2016). Concomitantly, the need for status augments new product acceptance (Hu & Van den Bulte, 2014), which implies that consumers with higher PDB also have a higher degree of new product acceptance.

We proposed that the effect of PDB on new product acceptance would likely be moderated by whether individuals are satisfied with their life: When they are not satisfied with their life, they try to make life changes to alter the status quo. For example, they may do something unusual (Alter & Hershfield, 2014) with the aim of enhancing their self-concept (Suh & Oishi, 2002) or of improving others’ social appraisal (Suh et al., 2008). Chan et al. (2012) and Wan et al. (2014) found support for the proposal that consumers prefer distinctive products when they are more concerned with self-view and self-concept than with social group identification. Because consumers with low PDB emphasize self-concept more than social appraisal, we predicted that they would evaluate new products more favorably when their life satisfaction is low. By contrast, individuals who are satisfied with their life do not need material possessions (i.e., products) to attract admiration, impress others, or gain power (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010; Srivastava et al., 2001); therefore, we anticipated that the effect of PDB on their new product acceptance would not be significant.

Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses

Interaction Effect of Power Distance Belief and Life Satisfaction

Consumers with higher PDB believe that everyone should have a defined place in the social order, and they may try to minimize potential changes to this order (Wang et al., 2008; Winterich & Zhang, 2014). In contrast, those with lower PDB display a stronger propensity to upend power barriers, and demonstrate greater novelty acceptance (Bradley et al., 2013; McCloskey, 2010; Singh, 2006). As individuals with lower life satisfaction are especially likely to categorize the future as unlike the present (J. Hayes et al., 2016), they are more likely than are people with high life satisfaction to behave differently (Tu & Soman, 2014), and make major life changes (J. Hayes et al., 2016).

A new product is any product that a consumer perceives as novel or unfamiliar (Faraji-Rad et al., 2017). Such products possess a differentiated character, enabling consumers to feel unique and different from others. Shrauger (1975) showed that individuals try to preserve and enhance their self-concept by purchasing certain products, and new products can represent intrinsic values (e.g., self-expression). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Life satisfaction will moderate the effect of power distance belief on consumers’ new product acceptance (as manifested through product preference and attitude), such that low power distance belief will predict the consumer’s greater preference for new products when life satisfaction is low. In contrast, when life satisfaction is high, power distance belief will not predict consumers’ new product preference.

Mediating Role of Need to Belong

Need to belong is a fundamental human motivation to form and maintain social bonds that produce positive interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and this need varies across individuals (Wei et al., 2021). We proposed that the effect of the underlying mechanism of the need to belong would be reduced when consumers have low life satisfaction and low PDB. PDB has been found to be positively related to conformity (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Sison & Palma-Angeles, 1997; Taras et al., 2010), such that individuals with high (vs. low) PDB are more likely to behave submissively to avoid disagreement. Further, they have a high need for dependence on powerful individuals (Hofstede, 1984). In contrast, those with low (vs. high) PDB have less need for approval and dependence (Dozier et al., 1998). Leary et al. (2013) suggested that individuals with a strong need to belong exhibit high social dependency. We concluded that individuals with low PDB would have a low need to belong—especially those with low life satisfaction, who are likely to make major life changes (J. Hayes et al., 2016) and then behave differently (Tu & Soman, 2014).

In addition, according to Hofstede (1984), in general, a culture’s position on the power distance continuum is closely correlated with its position regarding the dimensions of individualism/collectivism. People in individualistic cultures tend to have low (vs. high) PDB. Further, in individualistic (vs. collectivistic) cultures, happiness is more closely linked to individual psychological attributes, such as self-esteem and optimism (Suh & Oishi, 2002). In contrast, individuals in collectivistic cultures are more dependent on social norms (Suh et al., 1998) and social appraisal (Suh et al., 2008) to be happy. Accordingly, to form social bonds, instead of obtaining social appraisal individuals with low life satisfaction and with low PDB will pursue happiness by doing something unusual. Moreover, individuals with low life satisfaction have low connectedness with their temporal self (Peetz & Wilson, 2013), or with other individuals. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The need to belong will mediate the interaction effect of the degree of life satisfaction with power distance belief on consumers’ new product acceptance (comprising their product preference and attitude).

Moderating Role of Social Demonstrance

Social demonstrance is defined as a symbolic function whereby brands or products are used to project and communicate consumers’ self-concept to others (Fischer et al., 2010). Products can represent both intrinsic and extrinsic values, such as prestige and aspiration. For example, possessing an innovative product enables consumers to be distinctive (Lim & Park, 2013; Steenkamp et al., 1999), and adopting a new product can help them to achieve social superiority and to feel unique (Chung & Lee, 2019). Accordingly, consumers with high (vs. low) social demonstrance tend to focus on the symbolic benefits of new product adoption and are more likely to accept new products.

Consumers with low PDB are more receptive to innovation, such as new products and new ideas, when their level of life satisfaction is low (Lim & Park, 2013; Steenkamp et al., 1999). These people are more likely than are other consumers to feel a sense of self-enhancement and to recover their positive self-view through new product adoption (Chung & Lee, 2019). Consumers with high social demonstrance are often especially concerned about a product’s extrinsic values and tend to associate themselves with products or brands they perceive as socially significant (Wyne et al., 2018). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: The interaction effect of life satisfaction with power distance belief on consumers’ new product acceptance will be stronger when consumers have high (vs. low) social demonstrance.

Conceptual Model

As illustrated in Figure 1, we conducted three studies to test our hypotheses. In Study 1 we examined the differential impact of PDB on new product acceptance (i.e., new product preference) among participants according to their degree of life satisfaction. In Study 2 we explored whether the need to belong mediates the interactive effect of PDB with degree of life satisfaction on new product acceptance (i.e., new product attitude). In Study 3, we explored the boundary condition of social demonstrance to determine the interaction effect of PDB and life satisfaction on new product acceptance (i.e., new product attitude).

Study 1

Design and Participants

In Study 1 we tested the interaction effect of PDB with life satisfaction on new product preference (dependent variable) to reflect new product acceptance, by employing a 2 (power distance belief: high vs. low) × 2 (life satisfaction: high vs. low) between-subjects design. We recruited 109 undergraduate students (M_age = 20.1 years, SD = 1.23, range = 18–23; 62 women, 47 men) from a business course at a large university in southern China to participate in exchange for course credit.

Procedure and Measures

We received ethical approval to conduct Studies 1 and 2 from the Research Ethics Committee of Jinan University. Participants were informed of the purpose of the studies, told that their responses would be anonymous and used for this research only, and advised that their personal information would be kept confidential. Participation was voluntary. All the measurement items were translated from English into Chinese, then back-translated by two doctoral students and a bilingual professor familiar with the topic.

Participants completed a series of ostensibly unrelated tasks. First, they assessed their level of life satisfaction using J. Hayes et al.’s (2016) four-item Life Satisfaction Scale: “I am happy with my life just the way it is right now,” “I don’t need anything more out of life than what I have right now,” “I don’t want more out of life than what I currently have,” and “I am satisfied with my current life situation.” Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .87.

Second, they were randomly assigned to a high or low PDB condition and underwent PDB manipulation. Following the procedure used by Zhang et al. (2010), participants formed meaningful sentences from sets of scrambled words. In the high (vs. low) PDB condition, they completed 10 sentences related to social hierarchy (equality). Next, they were shown two photographs of electric vehicles: One was a traditional two-wheeled electric vehicle, the other was single-wheeled. They evaluated the innovativeness of these two electric vehicles separately on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very low innovation to 7 = very high innovation.

Then, following the procedure used by Yan et al. (2021), they indicated their preference for the new (vs. traditional) product by answering the question, “Which of these two electric vehicles is more attractive to you?” on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = definitely the two-wheeled electric vehicle to 7 = definitely the single-wheeled electric vehicle.

As a manipulation check, participants responded to three items: “For the time being, I mainly think that…”, “At this moment, I feel that…”, and “At the top of my mind right now are thoughts in agreement with saying that…” They rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = social hierarchy is important to 7 = social equality is important, such that a higher score indicates lower PDB. Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .90.

Finally, participants answered several demographic questions.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check
Planned contrast test results reveal that participants with high (vs. low) PDB reported greater momentarily accessible PDB, M_high = 3.78 versus M_low = 5.84; t(107) = −10.67, p < .001. Thus, priming was effective. A similar analysis of the product type check also indicated that participants rated the single-wheeled (vs. two-wheeled) electric vehicle as more innovative, M_{innovative vehicle} = 5.37, SD = 1.25, M_{traditional vehicle} = 3.63, SD = 1.18; t(108) = 11.64, p< .001. Thus, priming was effective.

New Product Preference
We regressed product preference on PDB and life satisfaction. The regression analysis results reveal there was a significant impact of PDB (β = −.82, t = −2.95, p = .004), a nonsignificant impact of life satisfaction (p = .146), and a significant interaction effect of PDB and life satisfaction (β = .77, t = 2.67, p = .009) on product preference. We then used a simple slope analysis to examine the effect of PDB according to level of life satisfaction. The results show that at M + 1 SD for life satisfaction (5.24), the preference for the new product was not predicted by PDB (β = .41, t = 0.91, p = .365). However, at M − 1 SD for life satisfaction (2.54), low PDB predicted a greater preference for the new product (β = −1.19, t = −2.76, p = .007; see Figure 2). These findings indicate that low PDB predicted participants’ stronger preference for a new product when their life satisfaction was low, but the effect of PDB on their preference was eliminated when life satisfaction was high. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Study 2

Design and Participants

In Study 2 we examined the mediating role of the need to belong. As in Study 1, we employed a 2 (power distance belief: high vs. low) × 2 (life satisfaction: high vs. low) between-subjects design. We recruited 113 undergraduate students (M_age = 20.11 years, SD = 1.17, range = 18–25; 85 women, 28 men) from a business course at a large university in southern China to participate in exchange for course credit. We used new product attitude as the dependent variable to reflect new product acceptance.

Procedure and Measures

We used the same procedure as that used in Study 1 to measure need to belong and new product attitude. However, for generalizability purposes we used a different product category. We measured need to belong using a 10-item scale validated by Leary et al. (2013), although one item was deleted because of a low factor loading. Sample items are “I want other people to accept me,” “I have a strong need to belong,” and “I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need.” Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .75.

Participants read an advertisement for an innovative knapsack that included a global positioning system and that could be used for charging a mobile phone or laptop computer. As such, it was an intelligent offering. A pretest confirmed that the intelligent (vs. traditional) knapsack was perceived as more innovative, M_intelligent = 4.92, SD = 1.46 versus M_traditional = 3.45, SD = 1.58; t(67) = 3.99, p < .001. Participants then evaluated their attitude toward the intelligent knapsack (Kokkinaki & Lunt, 1999) with three items: “I like the intelligent knapsack,” “The intelligent knapsack is attractive,” and “The intelligent knapsack is desirable.” Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .95. Finally, participants responded to several demographic questions.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check
Planned contrast test results reveal that participants with high (vs. low) PDB reported greater momentarily accessible PDB, M_high = 5.10 versus M_low = 5.88; t(111) = –3.22, p = .002. Thus, priming was successful.

New Product Attitude
We conducted a regression analysis with PDB as the independent variable, life satisfaction as the moderator, and new product attitude as the dependent variable. The interaction effect of PDB and life satisfaction on new product attitude was significant (β = .74, t = 2.16, p = .03). A simple slope analysis showed that at M + 1 SD for degree of life satisfaction (5.12), new product attitude did not differ between participants with low and high PDB (β = .35, t = 0.88, p = .382), but at M − 1 SD for degree of life satisfaction (2.84), participants with low PDB had higher scores for new product attitude than did those with high PDB (β = .89, t = 2.22, p = .029; see Figure 3). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was further supported.

Moderated Mediation Analysis
We conducted a moderated mediation analysis (Model 8 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS, A. F. Hayes, 2013) to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using PDB as the independent variable, new product attitude as the dependent variable, life satisfaction as the moderator, and need to belong as the mediator. As predicted, need to belong mediated the relationship between PDB and new product attitude at M − 1 SD for life satisfaction, 2.84, b = 0.19, 95% CI [0.005, 0.543]; the mediation effect was not significant, however, at M − 1 SD for life satisfaction, 5.12, b = −0.12, 95% CI [−0.465, 0.020]. Further, our moderated mediation index was significant, b = −0.14, 95% CI [−0.372, −0.002]. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

In sum, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were both further supported in Study 2. The results demonstrate that when life satisfaction was low, participants with low PDB had a more positive attitude toward new products. Further, these effects were mediated by the extent to which participants felt the need to establish social bonds, that is, need to belong.

Study 3

Design and Participants

Study 3 was designed to test the moderating effect of social demonstrance. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, told that their responses were anonymous and would be used for this research only, and advised that their personal information would be kept confidential. Participation was voluntary. We recruited participants through an intercept survey at the China Hi-Tech Fair in November 2016, where new technological products are exhibited. We collected survey forms from 200 visitors, of which 180 were valid and 20 were incomplete. Of the participants, 105 (58.3%) were men and 75 (42.7%) were women. In terms of age, 4.4% were aged under 20 years, 24.44% were aged between 20 and 24, 38.89% were aged between 25 and 29, 27.22% were aged between 30 and 39, 4.4% were aged between 40 and 49, 0.65% were aged over 49. As for monthly income, 6.7% earned less than CNY 2,001 (USD 312.80), 29.4% earned between CNY 2,001 and 5,000, 32.8% earned between CNY 5,001 and 8,000, and 31.1% earned more than CNY 8,000 (USD 1,243.20). As for level of education, 7% had received a high school education or less, 14.7% had received a postsecondary education, 48.86% had received an undergraduate education, and 29.44% had received a postgraduate education.

Procedure and Measures

Participants responded to the same life satisfaction items as were used in Studies 1 and 2. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .79. They were then asked to name a new product they had seen at the Hi-Tech Fair and report their attitude toward this product. To measure PDB, participants completed Hofstede’s (2001) eight-item power distance measure. Sample items are “As citizens, we should put high value on conformity,” “I would like to work with a manager who expects subordinates to carry out decisions loyally and without raising questions,” and “Employees should respect their supervisors highly.” Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .65. Participants assessed social demonstrance using Fischer et al.’s (2010) four-item scale. Sample items are “To me, the brand is indeed important because I believe that other people judge me on the basis of it” and “I purchase particular brands because I know that other people notice them.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .75. Finally, participants responded to several demographic questions.

Results and Discussion

We conducted a regression analysis with PDB as the independent variable, life satisfaction and social demonstrance as moderators, and new product attitude as the dependent variable. As shown in Table 1, the interaction of PDB with life satisfaction had a significant positive effect on new product attitude (β = .18, p < .05). Further, the triple interaction of PDB, life satisfaction, and social demonstrance had a marginally significant positive effect on new product attitude (β = .16, p < .10). According to Jiang et al. (2010), this marginal significance means that the interaction effect remains significant.

We plotted regression lines to further explore the interaction effect by substituting high and low life satisfaction. As shown in Figure 4 and Table 2, when life satisfaction was low, for participants with low (vs. high) PDB, new product attitude became significantly more positive, t = 3.52, p = .001. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was further supported, indicating that it was essential that life satisfaction be low for PDB to be effective in the promotion of a favorable new product attitude. However, when life satisfaction was low and PDB was low, for participants with low (vs. high) social demonstrance, new product attitude became significantly more negative, t = −3.07, p = −.002. These results indicate that social demonstrance moderated the interaction effect of life satisfaction with PDB on new product attitude. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Hypotheses 1 and 2 were also further supported in Study 3. The results support the moderating effect of social demonstrance, showing that the interactive role of PDB with life satisfaction was enhanced for consumers with high social demonstrance.

General Discussion

Across three studies, we provided converging evidence for the interaction effect of life satisfaction with PDB on consumers’ new product acceptance. Specifically, consumers with low (vs. high) PDB evaluated new (vs. traditional) products more favorably when their life satisfaction was low. In contrast, when consumers’ life satisfaction was high, the effect of PDB on their acceptance of a new product was not significant. We also documented the psychological underpinnings of this association, that is, when life satisfaction was low, need to belong varied according to whether consumers had high or low PDB. Our findings show that need to belong mediated the interaction of life satisfaction with PDB on consumers’ new product attitude. Further, consumers with low PDB and low life satisfaction showed higher new product acceptance when they had high social demonstrance.

Our results enrich knowledge of the relationship between PDB and new product acceptance. New products can evoke both favorable and unfavorable emotions (Lin et al., 2020). Thus, from the perspective of life satisfaction and social demonstrance, our results provide the potential to enhance new product acceptance.

Theoretical Implications

Our highlighting of the relationship between PDB and new product acceptance shows that consumers with low PDB reacted to new products according to their level of life satisfaction. Various mechanisms—such as desire for control (Faraji-Rad et al., 2017), need for status (Hu & Van den Bulte, 2014), and novelty-seeking propensities (Manning et al., 1995)—have been identified as an explanation for consumers’ new product acceptance. We proposed a new perspective to understand the effect of PDB and life satisfaction on new product acceptance. Our findings illustrate that need to belong can be a key hindrance to new product acceptance. The results also contribute to theoretical knowledge on the relationships of PDB, life satisfaction, and new product acceptance by identifying a new moderator, social demonstrance, which has not previously been examined in research on new product acceptance. We found that social demonstrance strengthened the interaction of PDB with life satisfaction in new product acceptance.

Practical Implications

Our results have implications for marketers concerned with achieving successful new product introduction. The results suggest that consumers with low PDB prefer new products when their life satisfaction is low. Accordingly, marketers should sell new products in cultures with low PDB, such as North America and Scandinavia, to consumers with low life satisfaction. As PDB can be manifested as a psychological state, marketers could also use advertisements to remind consumers of the importance of equality to prime consumers with low PDB when their life satisfaction is low, to enhance their attitude toward new products. Our results show that for consumers with high social demonstrance, the interaction effect of PDB with life satisfaction on consumers’ attitude toward a new product was noticeably significant. Therefore, it may well be useful to improve the attitude toward new products of consumers in low PDB cultures through marketers’ reminders to those with high social demonstrance (i.e., younger consumers) and low life satisfaction about the importance of the brand, and the low level of their satisfaction.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are several limitations in this study. First, we examined the moderators only from the perspective of consumers, that is, we focused on consumers’ life satisfaction and social demonstrance. Future researchers could explore the boundaries from the vantage point of a new product. The Study 3 participants were recruited through an intercept survey at the China Hi-Tech Fair, where all exhibits were new technological products. Although we asked participants to name a certain new product and report their attitude toward this product, they all still reported on different products. Because new products can be incremental or radical (Christensen & Raynor, 2013; Tomizawa et al., 2020), future researchers could explore whether the interactive effect of PDB with life satisfaction differs across new product categories. In addition, we tested the effect of both measured and manipulated PDB in China only. Future researchers could ascertain the generalizability of our findings with a cross-national sample, for example, consumers from cultures and countries where degree of life satisfaction and PDB differ from those of our Chinese participants.

Alter, A. L., & Hershfield, H. E. (2014). People search for meaning when they approach a new decade in chronological age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(48), 17066–17070.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415086111

Ang, D., Liu, Y., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2019). Difference in new product adoption among at-risk members of society: A critical analysis of males, females, and transgender individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, Article 109503.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.07.013

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Bradley, F., Gao, Y., & Sousa, C. M. P. (2013). A natural science approach to investigate cross-cultural managerial creativity. International Business Review, 22(5), 839–855.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.006

Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical: Combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 561–573.
https://doi.org/10.1086/664804

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2013). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Review Press.

Chung, J., & Lee, L. (2019). To buy or to resist: When upward social comparison discourages new product adoption. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 4(3), 280–292.
https://doi.org/10.1086/703697

Cooper, R. G. (2017). Winning at new products: Creating value through innovation (5th ed.). Basic Books.

Cooper, R. G., & Edgett, S. J. (2010). Developing a product innovation and technology strategy for your business. Research-Technology Management, 53(3), 33–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2010.11657629

Cui, H.-J., Fam, K.-S., Zhao, T.-Y., Xu, W., & Han, C. (2020). How to save the wounded self: Power distance belief’s moderation of self-identity threat and status-related consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19(1), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1789

Cutright, K. M. (2012). The beauty of boundaries: When and why we seek structure in consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 775–790.
https://doi.org/10.1086/661563

Dozier, J. B., Husted, B. W., & McMahon, J. T. (1998). Need for approval in low-context and high-context cultures: A communications approach to cross-cultural ethics. Teaching Business Ethics, 2(2), 111–125.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009733101664

Faraji-Rad, A., Melumad, S., & Johar, G. V. (2017). Consumer desire for control as a barrier to new product adoption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 347–354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.08.002

Fischer, M., Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2010). How important are brands? A cross-category, cross-country study. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 823–839.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.823

Gao, H., Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2016). All that glitters is not gold: How others’ status influences the effect of power distance belief on status consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 265–281.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw015

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Hayes, J., Ward, C. L., & McGregor, I. (2016). Why bother? Death, failure, and fatalistic withdrawal from life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(1), 96–115.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000039

Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 389–398.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4279653

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Hu, Y., & Van den Bulte, C. (2014). Nonmonotonic status effects in new product adoption. Marketing Science, 33(4), 509–533.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0857

Jiang, L., Hoegg, J., Dahl, D. W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2010). The persuasive role of incidental similarity on attitudes and purchase intentions in a sales context. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 778–791.
https://doi.org/10.1086/605364

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(38), 16489–16493.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 557–569.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069370

Kokkinaki, F., & Lunt, P. (1999). The effect of advertising message involvement on brand attitude accessibility. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(1), 41–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(98)00042-7

Lalwani, A. K., & Forcum, L. (2016). Does a dollar get you a dollar’s worth of merchandise? The impact of power distance belief on price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 317–333.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw019

Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of the Need to Belong Scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511

Lim, H., & Park, J.-S. (2013). The effects of national culture and cosmopolitanism on consumers’ adoption of innovation: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 25(1), 16–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2013.751793

Lin, Y.-T., MacInnis, D. J., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2020). Strong anxiety boosts new product acceptance when hope is also strong. Journal of Marketing, 84(5), 60–78.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920934495

Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329–345.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0404_02

McCloskey, D. N. (2010). Bourgeois dignity: Why economics can’t explain the modern world. University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226556666.001.0001

Nguyen, H. T., & Chaudhuri, M. (2019). Making new products go viral and succeed. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(1) 39–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.09.007

Oyserman, D. (2006). High power, low power, and equality: Culture beyond individualism and collectivism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 352–356.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_6

Peetz, J., & Wilson, A. E. (2013). The post-birthday world: Consequences of temporal landmarks for temporal self-appraisal and motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 249–266.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030477

Shrauger, J. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 581–596.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076791

Singh, S. (2006). Cultural differences in, and influences on, consumers’ propensity to adopt innovations. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 173–191.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330610660074

Sison, A. J. G., & Palma-Angeles, A. (1997). Business ethics in the Philippines. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(14), 1519–1528.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005854829315

Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2001). Money and subjective well-being: It’s not the money, it’s the motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 959–971.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.959

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., ter Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 55–69.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300204

Suh, E. M., Diener, E. D., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 482–493.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482

Suh, E. M., Diener, E. D., & Updegraff, J. A. (2008). From culture to priming conditions: Self-construal influences on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 3–15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107311769

Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being across cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1076

Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938

Thompson, S. A., & Sinha, R. K. (2008). Brand communities and new product adoption: The influence and limits of oppositional loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 65–80.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.6.065

Tian, M., Deng, P., Zhang, Y., & Salmador, M. P. (2018). How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review. Management Decision, 56(5), 1088–1107.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0462

Tomizawa, A., Zhao, L., Bassellier, G., & Ahlstrom, D. (2020). Economic growth, innovation, institutions, and the Great Enrichment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(1), 7–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09648-2

Tu, Y., & Soman, D. (2014). The categorization of time and its impact on task initiation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 810–822.
https://doi.org/10.1086/677840

Victory, K., Nenycz-Thiel, M., Dawes, J., Tanusondjaja, A., & Corsi, A. M. (2021). How common is new product failure and when does it vary? Marketing Letters, 32, 17–32.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09555-x

Wan, E. W., Xu, J., & Ding, Y. (2014). To be or not to be unique? The effect of social exclusion on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1109–1122.
https://doi.org/10.1086/674197

Wang, L. C., Ahlstrom, D., Nair, A., & Hang, R. Z. (2008). Creating globally competitive and innovative products: China’s next Olympic challenge. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 73(3), 4–15.

Wei, L.-Q., Zou, X., & Ormiston, M. (2021). Founder need to belong, tertius iungens orientation and new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42, 48–67.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2487

Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Accepting inequality deters responsibility: How power distance decreases charitable behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 274–293.
https://doi.org/10.1086/675927

Wyne, M. A., Khan, F. A., & Shafi, K. (2018). Impact of the social demonstrance of luxury brands on brand engagement behaviors: Role of consumer–brand identification. International Review of Management and Marketing, 8(2), 12–21.

Yan, L., Keh, H. T., & Wang, X. (2021). Powering sustainable consumption: The roles of green consumption values and power distance belief. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(3), 499–516.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04295-5

Zhang, Y., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Power distance belief and impulsive buying. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 945–954.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.945

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71802093)

the Jinan University Shenzhen Campus Funding Program (JNSZQH2109)

and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (21JNQN18).

Siyun Chen, School of Management, Jinan University, No. 601 Huangpu Avenue, Tianhe, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510632, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]