Explaining the unexpected and continued use of an information system with the help of evolved evolutionary mechanisms

Abstract

Explaining how, why, and to what extent humans use information systems has been at the heart of the information systems (IS) discipline, and although successful models have emerged, mostly relying on social and cognitive psychology in their theoretical underpinnings, there are still cases that remain unexplainable. In this article, we scrutinize one of these cases where the continued use of technology cannot be explained by one of the most prominent traditional IS models to date. We analyze our qualitative case study by juxtaposing two theoretical lenses: a traditional IS perspective (i.e., the "unified theory of acceptance and use" model) versus an evolutionary psychology perspective (i.e., the fourdrive model). We find that a more comprehensive understanding of continued IS usage is possible when including an evolutionary psychology perspective to the existing models. Specifically, we propose three new concepts, including evolved performance expectancy, evolved effort expectancy, and evolved social influence. We also demonstrate that, in some situations, cognitive and social constructs dominate, whereas in other situations, the evolutionary dependent constructs associated with human nature take over.

Explaining the emergence of hedonic motivations in enterprise social networks and their impact on sustainable user engagement

“…A particular instantiation of such a motivational model is the Four-Drive Model, postulating that human behavior in the workplace is motivated to a greater or lesser extent by the drives to acquire, bond, comprehend and defend (Lawrence and Nohria, 2002). The Four-Drive Model clusters mechanisms into a set of four drives, based on what the mechanism seeks to satisfy (Abraham et al , 2016). Lawrence and Nohria (2002) from Harvard Business School, specializing in behavioral economics as well as organizational behavior, state that these generic drives evolved in order to solve ancient adaptive problems and provide a stable influence for human behavior.…”

“…In the IS domain, the Four-Drive Model has been introduced through qualitative studies, discussing its potential role in technology acceptance research (Abraham et al , 2013), as well as a study trying to explain IS usage for energy reduction (Malhotra et al , 2013). Most recently, a study applied the Four-Drive Model to explain the continued usage of an IS despite its unfavorable perception about its usefulness and ease of use (Abraham et al , 2016). While these studies are vital, they are qualitative in nature.…”

“…While some resources, such as food or housing, are rather life-sustaining, others might entail an individuals’ desire for tangible goods, such as money, or intangible goods, such as travel experiences (Abraham et al , 2013). In the organizational context, this drive is reflected in the level of competence an individual wants to reach, the promotion he/she wants to achieve, or the professional image or status he/she wants to portray (Abraham et al , 2016).…”

“…The drive to defend is fulfilled if an individual experiences security, lives in an environment that is void of threats and promotes justice instead (Abraham et al , 2013). If the drive is not supported, an individual lives in constant anxiety and agony (Abraham et al , 2016).…”

User Motivation in Application Abandonment: A Four-Drives Model

“…Similarly, other prominent theoretical foundations such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Expectation Confirmation Theory (ECT), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) appear to be better suited to understanding application adoption and continuance rather than application abandonment [10,21,89,90]. In contrast, the four-drives model of human motivation provided a general account of the motivations that underlie human behavior that was also in accord with the themes we had identified as underlying motivations to abandon software applications [1,63].…”