Factors Influencing Paradoxes of Technology Adoption ... - CiteSeerX

Factors Influencing Paradoxes of Technology Adoption and Consumption Sherman Ting, Chris Dubelaar, Linda Dawson, Monash University Abstract With the rise of the internet and mobile telephony, many agree that Mobile-Business is the logical next step in the Electronic-Business revolution. Investigation of mobile electronic marketing is essential to ensure both consumers and organisations gain true value from the adoption and consumption of M-Business into their personal and working lives. Marketing to date has primarily focused on understanding the diffusion of M/E-Business technologies, adopter categories and adoption rates, whereas research in Information Systems (IS) often focuses on quantitatively predicting its adoption and usage by individuals and organisations. Few theories focus on investigating how a user’s perception, expectation and experience of the technology change post adoption. This paper brings together research interests from a range of disciplines from marketing and consumer behaviour to IS to sociology. Using MBusiness as a technology medium, it investigates a unique aspect of electronic marketing: Understanding how an individual’s cultural, educational, social, economic, political and technological characteristics can influence how they adopt, consume and experience technology’s vast array of psychological and behavioural experiences. Keywords: Mobile-Business, electronic marketing, technology, adoption, consumption, consumer behaviour, paradoxes, capital resources. Background Information Systems (IS) is well-regarded as being an integral part of our daily lives. A successful technology requires designers to see beyond technical challenges to include any social, environmental and even political consequences. It should be widely considered valuable and convenient regardless of the user’s socioeconomic and cultural background and promotes social coherence rather than negatively contributing to the socioeconomic divide. It should be everlasting, for the right reasons. Technology adoption, in particular IS based technologies like M-Business, has been extensively researched across disciplines from marketing to IS management to communication and psychology. Each field contributed with different theories but all are aimed at exploring and explaining how users perceive, adopt, and consume technology. Marketing scholars have predominantly built on Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovation theory to understand the diffusion process in the marketplace. IS scholars have concentrated research using Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to measure, explain and predict how technological systems are used in an organisational environment. From TAM, numerous developmental theories including the Consumer-context TAM (Bruner II and Kumar 2005), TAM version 2 (Venkatesh and Davis 2000) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003) have surfaced further explaining the process of technology usage. Communication scholars have utilised the Uses and Gratifications (U&G) perspective (Katz 1959) to understand the conditions and technological characteristics that promote continued usage. Psychologists too have incorporated U&G and extensively adapted Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (1975) to explain user’s choices and actual technology usage. Finally, psychologists further developed the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to account for conditions where individuals have no

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Electronic Marketing

142

control over their behaviour in using technology (Taylor and Todd 1995). This research revealed that technology acceptance from IS’ view is influenced by three main reasons: 1) social environment; 2) individual influences; and 3) work related factors. Literature often falls short in understanding user's technology adoption's effect downstream. Few theories focus on investigating if and how people’s technology usage, value perceptions and expectations change post adoption. Experiences downstream of adoption are considered strong predictors of an individual’s future adoption Any research that investigates how consumers experience the complex subject of technology adoption and consumption is actually investigating how to add value beyond the technology itself but also to its wider industry and ultimately its users for society. Consumption behaviour Consumers today are increasingly stressed and frustrated by technology's complicated usage and overwhelming learning and maintenance requirements (BBC_News 2005; Lee and O'Connor 2003). Its sophistication and features-packed nature make selection, adoption, maintenance and future upgrades too difficult to comprehend for the average user. These are just some of the array of dilemmas consumers face with technology. Each consumer reacts to and experiences these dilemmas differently, depending on their personal background and behaviours. Some actively learn to overcome these fears whilst others avoid or hesitate with future adoption (Dhebar 1996). To understand how technology is and will be experienced by individuals, it is essential to understand where the individuals come from, why and how they got there (Inglehart 1990). This research proposes that an individual's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and technological background, which determines their social and occupational network (Bourdieu 1979; Putnam 1995), play an integral role in determining how individuals approach and cope with the many facets of consumption, including the paradoxes of technology. Research revealed that recent trialling experiences help predict future trying and behavioural intentions (Bagozzi and Warshaw 1990). This research builds on and goes beyond applying the well-researched IS and marketing theories in technology acceptance, adoption and diffusion, studying consumers’ experience in the adoption and consumption of M-Business technologies, examining trends and patterns to assist marketers market and consumers consume the electronic revolution more successfully. It specifically builds on an intriguing area of technology consumption - Paradoxes of technology (Mick and Fournier 1998). Paradoxes Paradoxes exist in virtually every aspect of our lives. Despite its social importance, limited research exists in understanding its role in marketing, IS or consumer behaviour, especially with technology (Mick and Fournier 1998). A paradox is a statement or statements that initially sound believable but lead to a logical and valid self-contradiction (Herndon 2001; Quine 1962). Some view paradoxes as a natural part of life. Others consider it a visible sign of an imperfect world that needs to be understood and organized better (Handy 1994). Today, consumers are wealthier, but want cheaper deals with more value; consumers are more satisfied and comfortable, but complain and expect more; consumers want more quality attention, services and support, but resent personal intrusion; and consumers are becoming


143

more professional in consumption, especially with the increased accessibility to an everincreasing amount of information from the internet, but are increasingly confused with more choices to make in less time (Misra 2003). The unpredictability of the external and internal environments has further necessitated marketers and researchers to understand and even predict consumers’ unpredictable behaviours. Paradoxes of technology Mick and Fournier’s (1998) grounded theory research revealed eight paradoxes associated with technology consumption: 1) Assimilation/Isolation; 2) Competence/Incompetence; 3) Efficiency/Inefficiency; 4) Engaging/Disengaging; 5) Control/Chaos; 6) Freedom/Enslavement; 7) New/Obsolete; and 8) Fulfils/Creates needs. These paradoxes can have significant social implications that influence how technology benefits or hinders our lives. For example, Kraut et al. (1998) observed a social paradox brought on by the internet. This social technology is heavily used in promoting social engagement and assimilation amongst people. Yet it simultaneously isolates and disengages individuals from social involvement, creating a poorer quality of life by diminishing physical and psychological health. It is also associated with the engagement of happier and healthier citizens both physically and mentally (Cohen and Wills 1985). M-Business consumers experience similar social paradoxes. Mobile internet IT promotes social assimilation, communication and engagement between people, breaking down distance barriers. Once adopted, the hardware is quickly made obsolete by newer and more fashionable models. The technology does provide users with the luxury of mobility and freedom but it also simultaneously enslaves them with worry about reception levels and requires users to constantly child-mind their mobiles on reception level or usage etiquette. Consumption and Capital Resources This paper extends the consumption literature by uniquely investigating and linking an individual’s technology consumption experience with their cultural, educational, social, economic political and technological capital. Capital provides a measurability of society (Pieterse 2000), offering a highly strategic personal attribute. It can assist in explaining why we find enduring differences in the course of action between people in various situations and thus leads to myriad consequences - because different people with different values, attitudes, beliefs and habits will react markedly different even in similar context (Inglehart 1990). One way to understand an individual’s complex consumption behaviours is to interpret the road maps to which they have oriented their life. Socio-culture provides a means to construct and define such maps of the universe (Inglehart 1990). To define an individual’s socio-culture, research (Booth and Richard 1998; Bourdieu 1979; Callan and Finney 2002; Dubelaar and Kates 2003; Holt 1998; Putnam 1995; Rojas et al. 2001) have developed six distinctive capital resources which forms an individual’s construct (see Table 1). Table 1: Primary capital resources Capital type Cultural Educational Social Economic Political Technological

Description Socially rare and distinctive tastes, skills, knowledge and practices Formal education level and knowledge Family, relationships, trust, organisational affiliation and networks Financial resources, occupation and demographics Political affiliation, knowledge and support Technology knowledge, skills, awareness and ability to use


144

This research investigates the motivations that inspire individuals to accept, reject, resist and cope with paradoxes of technological innovations. To do so, requires the understanding of individual's portfolio of capital resource, how they were constructed, how they relate to each other and more importantly where it will lead them in the future. Conceptual framework To understand how the various theories of technology adoption, consumption and paradoxes are linked to an individual’s habitus through their attained capital resources, a conceptual model of was developed describing capital resource attainment with technology consumption (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Technology Consumption Four key entities are associated with technology consumption. An individual’s portfolio of unique cultural, educational, social, economic, political and technological properties define and divide who they are, what they do, act, interact with, life trajectories, and even the process governing their thinking. To understand their unique set of tastes and behaviours requires understanding their habitus (Bourdieu 1979) created and developed over time by their social environment including their family, peers, educational system, community and social group. Consumers will experience the vast array of theories associated with technology adoption including diffusion of innovation, TAM and paradoxes and coping strategies of technology uniquely in the macroscopic global environment of market trends and norms. Entities are represented with broken boundaries showing a permeable interaction between elements. For example, an individual can freely interact with and can be influenced by their social environment which itself interacts with and is influenced by the wider global environment. An individual and their social environment employ a unique set of technology adoption and consumption pattern, based upon the construction of their capital resource portfolio and level of capital resource attainment. The research proposes a way to quantitatively categorise each individual on their cultural, educational, social, economic, political and technological capital as a capital resource producer (high), commoner (average) or adopter (low). It proposes that individuals holding different levels of capital resources will employ different adoption and consumption strategies resulting in different consequences and considerations to future adoption. Capital producer have the knowledge, skills, experiences and beliefs that contrasts them with capital adopters on the success of consumption experience. For example, a high social capital consumer can use their understanding of social assimilation, communication and


145

trust, to turn complex and stressful consumption behaviours into a constructive experience, further enhancing their confidence in future adoption (Dubelaar and Kates 2003). Conversely, a low social capital consumer will tend to follow the technology and market, bowing to external pressures and expectations, thus further increasing the stress from consumption. With time and sufficient resources, consumers will learn from past experiences. This research investigates whether the attitude that ‘time heals everything’ will also have an impact on consumers’ approach and experience to future technology adoption. This research explores whether a more informed, better equipped, more experienced, and knowledgeable consumer will be able to experience and cope with the complex experience of technology consumption more successfully than a counterpart. It investigates beyond levels of capital resources to also investigate which capital resources and what extent influences which adoption and consumption experience and why. To truly investigate the electronic marketing of M-business is to investigate and understand the links between capital resources with consumption behaviour. Value from technology is derived differently for each individual as they experience technology's benefits in different situations with different costs. This research proposes that these differences are influenced by how an individual’s repertoire of capital resources influences their perspective of and commitment to technology adoption. Method Data collection for this research will be carried out using a series of qualitative open-ended, semi-structured long interviews with informants that have adopted M-Business technologies. The interview approach provides an in-depth exploration into a consumer’s psychological and behavioural experiences. Each informant forms a different case study, as each informant hold a different set of capital resource portfolio, providing a unique perspective on the interaction of each entity in the model. Conclusions and Contributions Individual constructs and backgrounds are based upon an individual’s portfolio and level of capital resources. Past literature has investigated and surveyed informant’s cultural (Holt 1998), social (Grootaert et al. 2004; Putnam 1995), political (Booth and Richard 1998) or technological capitals (Dubelaar and Kates 2003; Rojas et al. 2001) individually. None however have utilised all or combined the outlined primary capital resources into a portfolio that characterises an individual’s construct. Few have attempted to categorise the capitals into a simple quantitative scale lie Holt (1998). Based upon literature, this research adapted and developed the capital resources into an easy to employ quantifiable scales, providing a simple means of categorising and comparing with others an informant's level of capital attainment. This research investigates how an individual’s education levels, occupation, network participation, and attitudes influence their technology consumption, their methods and reactions, and thus how they will adopt future technologies. This research innovatively draws upon various fields’ contribution to understand how consumers experience and practice technology consumption downstream of adoption. Through a conceptual model, it investigates how consumer’s approach is influenced by their individual construct and social background which not only influences how they approach and experience technology but also influences their global environment as well as the theories of adoption itself. Understanding a theory is, after all, meaningless without really understanding the people from which it is derived.


146

References Bagozzi, R.P. and P.R. Warshaw (1990), "Trying to Consume," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (2), 127-40. BBC_News (2005), "Why technology misses the masses," Vol. 2005: BBC News. Booth, John, A. and Patricia Bayer Richard (1998), "Civil Society, Political Capital and Democratization in Central America," The Journal of Politics, 60 (3), 780-800. Bourdieu, Pierre (1979), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bruner II, Gordon C. and Anand Kumar (2005), "Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices," Journal of Business Research, 58 (5), 553-58. Callan, Patrick M. and Joni Finney, E. (2002), "Assessing Educational Capital: An Imperative for Policy," Change, 25-31. Cohen, S. and T.A. Wills (1985), "Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis," Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-57. Davis, Fred D. (1989), "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology," MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-40. Dhebar, A. (1996), "Speeding high-tech producer, meet the balking consumer," Sloan Management Review, 37 Winter 1996 (2), 37-49. Dubelaar, Chris and Steve Kates (2003), "Internet Adoption and the Moral Economy of the Household: Consuming Strategies after Adopting a New Product. Built on a Disruptive Technology Platform," Working paper. Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publications. Grootaert, Christiaan, Deepa Narayan, Veronica Nyhan Jones, and Michael Woolcock (2004), "Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire." Washington DC: World Bank. Handy, C.B. (1994), The Age of Paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Herndon, Sandra L. (2001), "The paradox of powerlessness: Gender, sex, and power in 12step groups," Women and Languages, 24 (2), 7-13. Holt, D.B. (1998), "Does Cultural Capital Structure American Consumption?," Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June), 1-25. Inglehart, R. (1990), Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


147

Katz, Elihu (1959), "Mass communication research and the study of popular culture: An editorial note on a possible future for this journal," Studies in Public Communication, 2, 1-6. Kraut, R., M. Patterson, V. Lundmark, S. Kiesler, T. Mukopadhyay, and W. Scherlis (1998), "Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?," American Psychologist, 53, 1017-31. Lee, Y. and G.C O'Connor (2003), "The Impact Of Communication Strategy On Launching New Products: The Moderating Role Of Product Innovativeness," Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 20 (1), 4-21. Mick, D.G. and S. Fournier (1998), "Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), 123-43. Misra, A (2003), "Clue to the consumer conundrum: Marketers can get a better hang of consumer behaviour through an understanding of consumer paradoxes," in Businessline. Pieterse, J.N. (2000), "Social Capital, Migration and Cultural Difference: Beyond Ethnic Economies," Institute of Social Studies Working Papers, Working Paper Series No. 327 (December). Putnam, Robert D. (1995), "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), 65-78. Quine, W. V (1962), "Paradoxes," in Scientific American. Rogers, Everett M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations (5th Edition ed.). New York: Free Press. Rojas, V. , D. Roychowdhury, O. Okur, J. Straubhaar, and Y. Estrada-Ortiz (2001), "Beyond Access: Cultural Capital and the Roots of the Digital Divide," Working Paper, University of Texas, Austin. Taylor, Shirley and Peter A. Todd (1995), "Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models," Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144-76. Venkatesh, Viswanath , Michael G Morris, Gordon B Davis, and Fred D Davis (2003), "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view," MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425. Venkatesh, Viswanath and Fred D. Davis (2000), "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, 46 (2), 186-204.


148