Technology adoption research has long struggled to incorporate normative beliefs from sources in the social environment of adopters into adoption models. We study the role of social influence from different workplace referent groups, like superiors and colleagues from the same or the IT department, on the intention to adopt. An empirical analysis, using data from 152 firms, based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and related approaches reveals that social influence on adoption significantly differs with regard to both source (peer groups) and sink (adopters and non-adopters) of the influence. The results imply that a single cumulative subjective norm measure might be too naive and that future research might considerably improve our understanding of IT adoption and non-adoption by revealing the differential impact of various peer groups on adoption intention, and also on its antecedents.
AgarwalR. (2000). Individual Acceptance of Information Technologies, in ZmudR.W. (ed.) Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future through the Past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources, pp. 85–104.
2.
AhtolaO.T. (1976). Toward a Vector Model of Intentions, in AndersonB.B. (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 481–484.
3.
AjzenI. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A theory of planned behavior, in KuhlJ., and BeckmannJ. (eds.) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, New York: Springer, pp. 11–39.
4.
AjzenI. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior: Some unresolved issues, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
5.
AngJ., and PavriF. (1994). A Survey and Critique of the Impacts of Information Technology, International Journal of Information Management14(2): 122–133.
6.
AschS.E. (1951). Effects of Group Pressure on the Modification and Distortion of Judgments, Groups, Leadership, Men, in GuetzkowH. (ed.) Groups, Leadership and Men: Research in Human Relations, Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press, pp. 177–190.
7.
BagozziR.P. (1979). The Role of Measurement in Theory Construction and Hypothesis Testing: Toward a holistic model, in FerellO.C., BrownS.W., and LambC.W. (eds.) Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, pp. 15–32.
8.
BagozziR.P., and YiY. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 74–94.
9.
BhattacherjeeA., and HikmetN. (2007). Physicians’ Resistance Toward Healthcare Information Technology: A theoretical model and empirical test, European Journal of Information Systems (17): 725–737.
10.
BollenK., and LennoxR. (1991). Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A structural equation perspective, Psychological Bulletin110(2): 305–314.
11.
BrislinR.W. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology1: 185–216.
12.
BrownS.A., and VenkateshV. (2005). Model of Adoption of Technology in Households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle, MIS Quarterly29(3): 399–426.
13.
BurnsT., and StalkerG.M. (1961). The Management of Innovation, London: Tavistock Publications.
14.
CappelliP. (2000). A Market-Driven Approach to Retaining Talent, Harvard Business Review78(1): 103–111.
15.
ChambersE.G., FoulonF., Handfield-JonesH., HankinS.M., and MichaelsE.G. (1998). The War for Talent, The McKinsey Quarterly3: 44–57.
16.
ChinW.W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling, in MarcoulidesG.A. (ed.) Modern Methods for Business Research, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 295–336.
17.
ChinW.W. (2000). Frequently Asked Questions - Partial least squares and PLS-graph [www document] http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq.htm (accessed 2nd October 2008).
18.
ChinW.W., and GopalA. (1995). Adoption Intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems26(2 and 3): 42–64.
19.
ChinW.W., MarcolinB.L., and NewstedP.R. (2003). A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study, Information Systems Research14(2): 189–217.
20.
ChurchillG.A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research16: 64–73.
21.
DavisF.D., BagozziR.P., and WarshawP.R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer-Technology - A comparison of two theoretical-models, Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
22.
DewanS., and RigginsF.J. (2005). The Digital Divide: Current and future research directions, Journal of the Association for Information Systems6(12): 298–336.
23.
DiamantopoulosA., and SiguawJ.A. (2006). Formative vs Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A comparison and empirical illustration, British Journal of Management (17): 263–282.
24.
DibbernJ., and ChinW.W. (2005). Multi-Group Comparison Testing a PLS Model on Sourcing of Application Software Services across Germany and the USA Using a Permutation Based Algorithm, in BliemelF., EggertA., FassotG., and HenselerJ. (eds.) Handbuch PLS Pfadmodellierung, Stuttgart: Schaeffel-Poesche.
25.
DwivediY., WilliamsM.D., LalB., and SchwarzA. (2008). Profiling Adoption, Acceptance and Diffusion Research in the Information Systems Discipline, in Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems (Galway, Ireland, 2008).
26.
EckhardtA., KoenigW., WeitzelT., and DeiningerK. (2007). Recruiting Trends 2007 - European Union -An Empirical Survey with the top 1,000- enterprises in the EU, Goethe-University Frankfurt a. Main., Research Report, Ref. No. 2007–798.
27.
EckhardtA., LaumerS., and WeitzelT. (2008). Reconsidering Subjective Norm - A Multilayer-Framework for Modeling Normative Beliefs in IT Adoption, in Proceedings of the 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems (Toronto, Ont., Canada, 2008).
28.
EdgingtonE.S. (1987). Randomization Tests, 2nd edn, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
29.
FestingerL. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes, Human Relations7(117): 117–140.
30.
FishA., and MacklinR. (2004). Perceptions of Executive Search and Advertised Recruitment Attributes and Service Quality, Personnel Review33(1): 30–54.
31.
FishbeinM., and AjzenI. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
32.
FornellC., and LarckerD.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and statistics, Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 382–388.
33.
FrambachR.T., and SchillewaertN. (2002). Organizational Innovation Adoption, a Multi-Level Framework of Determinants and Opportunities for Future Research, Journal of Business Research55(2): 163–176.
34.
GallivanM.J. (2001). Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and application of a new framework, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems32(3): 51–85.
35.
GoodP. (2000). Permutation Tests, a Practical Guide to Resampling Methods for Testing Hypotheses, 2nd edn, New York: Springer.
36.
HirschheimR. (2007). Introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Quo Vadis TAM’ - Issues and reflections on technology acceptance research, Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 203–205.
37.
HsiehJ.J.P.-A., RaiA., and KeilM. (2008). Understanding Digital Inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged, MIS Quarterly32(1): 97–126.
38.
HullandJ. (1999). Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A review of four recent studies, Strategic Management Journal20(2): 195–204.
39.
IgbariaM., ParasuramanS., and BaroudiJ.J. (1996). A Motivational Model of Microcomputer Usage, Journal of Management Information Systems13(1): 127–143.
40.
KarahannaE., StraubD.W., and ChervanyN.L. (1999). Information Technology Adoption across Time: A cross-sectional comparison of preadoption and post-adoption beliefs, MIS Quarterly23(2): 183–213.
41.
KeilM., TuunainenV., and WassenaarA. (2000). A Cross-Cultural Study on Escalation of Commitment Behaviors in Software Projects, MIS Quarterly24(2): 299–325.
42.
KeimT., MalinowskiJ., and WeitzelT. (2005). Bridging the Assimilation Gap: A User-Centered Approach to IT-Adoption in Corporate HR Processes, in Proceedings of the 2005 Americas Conference on Information Systems (Omaha, NE, USA, 2005).
43.
KimC., JahngJ., and LeeJ. (2007). An Empirical Investigation into the Utilization-Based Information Technology Success Model: Integrating task-performance and social influence perspective, Journal of Information Technology22(2): 152–160.
44.
KingW.R., LiuC.Z., HaneyM.H., and HeJ. (2007). Method Effects in IS Survey Research: An assessment and recommendations, Communications of the AIS20: 457–482.
45.
LapointeL., and RivardS. (2005). A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation, MIS Quarterly29(3): 461–486.
46.
LapointeL., and RivardS. (2007). A Triple Take on Information System Implementation, Organization Science18(1): 89–107.
47.
LaumerS., EckhardtA., and WeitzelT. (2008). Do as Your Competitors Do? - Analyzing Competitors’ Influence on the Non-Adoption of Information Systems in Organizations, in Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems (Galway, Ireland, 2008).
48.
LeeY., LeeJ., and LeeZ. (2006). Social Influence on Technology Acceptance Behavior: Self-identity theory perspective, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems37(2/3): 60–75.
49.
LewisW., AgarwalR., and SambamurthyV. (2003). Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An empirical study of knowledge workers, MIS Quarterly27(4): 657–678.
50.
LiskaA.E. (1984). Contact Hypothesis and Inter-Age Attitudes: A field study of cross-age contact, Social Psychology Quarterly47(1): 74–80.
51.
LuJ., YaoJ.E., and YuC. (2005). Personal Innovativeness, Social Influences and Adoption Of Wireless Internet Services via Mobile Technology, Journal of Strategic Information Systems14(3): 245–268.
52.
MalinowskiJ., KeimT., and WeitzelT. (2005). Analyzing the Impact of IS Support on Recruitment Processes: An E-Recruitment Phase Model, in Proceedings of The Ninth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (Bangkok, Thailand, 2005).
53.
MathiesonK. (1991). Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior, Information Systems Research2(3): 173–191.
54.
MiniardP.W., and CohenJ.B. (1983). Modeling Personal and Normative Influences on Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research10(2): 169–180.
55.
MooreG.C., and BenbasatI. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation, Information Systems Research2(3): 192–223.
56.
NelsonK.M., and CoopriderJ.G. (1996). The Contribution of Shared Knowledge to IS Group Performance, MIS Quarterly20(4): 409–432.
57.
NunnallyJ.C., and BernsteinI.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
58.
PavlouP.A., and FygensonM. (2006). Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior, MIS Quarterly30(1): 115–143.
59.
PetterS., StraubD., and RaiA. (2007). Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly31(4): 623–656.
60.
PodsakoffP.M. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
61.
ReichB.H., and BenbasatI. (2000). Factors that Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment Between Business and Information Technology Objectives, MIS Quarterly24(1): 81–113.
62.
RingleC.M., WendeS., and WillA. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0.M3 [www document] http://www.smartpls.de (accessed 23 September 2008).
63.
SherifM. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception, Columbia University, Archives of Psychology27(187).
64.
SriteM., and KarahannaE. (2006). The Role of Espoused National Cultural Values in Technology Acceptance, MIS Quarterly30(3): 679–704.
65.
StraubD., BoudreauM.C., and GefenD. (2004). Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research, Communications of the AIS14: 380–427.
66.
TaylorS.P., and ToddP.A. (1995). Understanding Information Technology Usage: A test of competing models, Information Systems Research6(2): 144–176.
67.
ThompsonR.L., HigginsC.A., and HowellJ.M. (1991). Personal Computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization, MIS Quarterly15(1): 125–142.
68.
ThompsonR.L., HigginsC.A., and HowellJ.M. (1994). Influence of Experience on Personal Computer Utilization: Testing a conceptual model, Journal of Management Information Systems11(1): 167–187.
69.
ThompsonV. (2007). Talent Shortage? How to Win with What You've Got, Supervision68(2): 15–17.
70.
TiwanaA., BharadwajA., and SambamurthyV. (2003). The Antecedants of Information Systems Development Capability in Firms: A Knowledge Integration Perspective, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems (Seattle, WA, USA, 2003); 246–258.
71.
Van RaaijE.M., and SchepersJ.J.L. (2006). The Acceptance and Use of a Virtual Learning Environment in China, Computers and Education50(3): 838–852.
72.
VenkateshV., and BrownS.A. (2001). A Longitudinal Investigation of Personal Computers in Homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges, MIS Quarterly25(1): 71–102.
73.
VenkateshV., and DavisF.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies, Management Science46(2): 186–204.
74.
VenkateshV., MorrisM.G., DavisG.B., and DavisF.D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
75.
WarshawP.R. (1980). A New Model for Predicting Behavioral Intentions: An alternative to Fishbein, Journal of Marketing Research17: 153–172.
