The role of user resistance in the adoption of a mobile data service

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 663-672

  Sanford, Clive ^a   Oh, Hyunok ^a  

^a Hanyang University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MASS COMMUNICATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; QUESTIONNAIRE; TELECOMMUNICATION;

ADULT; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; TELECOMMUNICATIONS;

EID: 78650278814     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0377     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Markus ML, Robey D. Information technology and organi-zational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science 1988; 34:583-98.
2. Keen PGW. Information systems and organizational change. Communications of the ACM 1981; 24:24-33.
3. Leonard-Barton D. Implementation characteristics of orga-nizational innovations. Communications Research 1988; 15:603-31.
4. Freudenheim M. Many hospitals resist computerized patient care. New York Times, Apr. 6, 2004. www.mindfully.org? Technology/2004/Hospitals-Computerized- Care6apr04.htm (accessed April 20, 2010).
5. Markus ML. Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM 1983; 26:430-44.
6. Lapointe L, Rivard S. A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly 2005; 29:461-91.
7. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 1989; 35:982-1003.
8. Taylor S, Todd PA. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research 1995; 6:144-76.
9. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unifying view. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27:425-78.
10. Cenfetelli RT. Inhibitors and enablers and dual factor con-cepts in technology usage. Journal of the Association of In-formation Systems 2004; 5:472-92.
11. Lewin K. Frontiers in group dynamics: I. Concept, method, and reality in social sciences, social equilibria, and social change. Human Relations 1947; 1:5-41.
12. Zaltman G, Duncan R. (1977) Strategies for planned change. New York: John Wiley.
13. Wixom BH, Todd PA. A theoretical integration of user sat-isfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research 2005; 16:85-102.
14. Speier C, Vessey I, Valacich JS. The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences 2003; 34:771-97.
15. Connor M, Sparks P. Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology 2002; 12:37-70.
16. Doll J, Ajzen I. Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1992; 63:754-65.
17. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. (1995) Attitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change. In Petty RE, Krosnick JA, eds. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 413-32.
18. Festinger L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19. Batson CD. Rational processing or rationalization? The ef-fect of disconfirming information on a stated religious belief. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1975; 32:176-84.
20. Sherman S, Gorkin L. Attitude bolstering when behavior is inconsistent with central attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1980; 16:388-403.
21. Venkatesh V, Brown SA. A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly 2001; 25:71-102.
22. Kahneman D, Miller DT. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review 1986; 93:136-53.
23. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field stud-ies. Management Science 2000; 46:186-205.
24. Ajzen I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2002; 32:665-683.
25. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 1991; 50:179-211.
26. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM. Personal comput-ing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quar-terly 1991; 15:125-43.
28. Chin WW. (1998) The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides GA, ed. Modern methodsfor business research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 295-336.
29. Podaskoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 1986; 12:531-44.
30. Jarvis CB, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM. A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecifica-tion in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Con-sumer Research 2003; 30:199-218.
31. MacCallum RC Browne MW. The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some practical issues. Psycho-logical Bulletin 1993; 114:533-41.
32. Nasser F, Wisenbaker J. A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling on measures of fit in confir-matory factor analysis. Educational & Psychological Mea-surement 2003; 63:729-57.
33. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equations with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981; 18:39-50.
34. Cohen J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.