Understanding Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Controversial Information Technologies: A Contextualization Approach

Abstract

Controversial information technologies, such as biometrics and radio frequency identification, are perceived as having the potential to both benefit and undermine the well-being of the user. Given the type and/or amount of information these technologies have the capability to capture, there have been some concerns among users and potential users. However, prominent technology adoption models tend to focus on only the positive utilities associated with technology use. This research leverages net valence theories, which incorporate both positive and negative utilities, and context of use literature to propose a general framework that can be used for understanding consumer acceptance of controversial information technologies. The framework also highlights the importance of incorporating contextual factors that reflect the nuances of the controversial technologies and their specific context of use. We apply the framework to consumer acceptance of biometric identity authentication for banking transactions through automated teller machines. To that end, we contextualize the core construct of perceived benefits and concerns to this domain in a qualitative study of 402 participants, determine the appropriate contextual factors that are antecedents of the contextualized core constructs by examining relevant past research, and then develop and validate a contextualized research model in a quantitative study of 437 participants. Findings support the validity of our framework, with the model explaining 77.6% of the variance in consumers’ attitudes toward using biometrics for identity authentication at automated teller machines. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0706 .

Physiolytics at the workplace: Affordances and constraints of wearables use from an employee's perspective

“…This is in line with prior studies (Breward et al, 2017;Warkentin, Goel, & Menard, 2017) that showed that there is a predisposition to view emerging and/or controversial solutions with greater scepticism and worry as when risks and returns are more predictable to users. As we mentioned above, there is a considerable emphasis on constraints across all mental models.…”

“…The limiting factors shaped the worldviews of our respondents much more than the action potentials. This is in line with prior studies (Breward et al, 2017;Warkentin, Goel, & Menard, 2017) that showed that there is a predisposition to view emerging and/or controversial solutions with greater scepticism and worry as when risks and returns are more predictable to users. All mental models we discovered exhibit a certain level of controversy and hesitant attitude towards physiolytics, since multiple constraints become salient in the people's appraisals.…”

“…The first stream, which follows a variance (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005;Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003) or variables-centred (Elbanna & Linderoth, 2015) approach in understanding the use of IT, has yielded numerous and probably most recognized theories in explaining technology adoption (eg, Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004;Davis, 1989;Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). Due to the deterministic nature of these types of studies, they have been frequently criticized either for their tendency to oversimplify the IT artefact, use, and user as relatively uniform, discrete, independent, and stable concepts that can be operationalized by a small number of contextual, behavioural, and demographic variables (Bagozzi, 2007;Schwarz & Chin, 2007), or for neglecting the role of rich and convoluted user experiences in deciphering why a certain type of user would use an emerging (or controversial) technology and others not (Breward, Hassanein, & Head, 2017;Zhang & Chignell, 2001).…”

Role of situational context in use continuance after critical exergaming incidents

“…Such contextualization refers to identifying characteristics of the particular context under investigation and incorporating them in the research design (Davison & Martinsons, ; Breward, Hassanein, & Head, 2017). As contextualised studies take the specifics of IS use into account, they can promote the accuracy and relevance of the research findings (Breward, Hassanein, & Head, ), benefit practice by providing empirical insights (Burton‐Jones & Volkoff, ), extend extant theoretical knowledge (Davison & Martinsons, ), and be helpful in better aligning IS use theorizations with how IS are actually employed in real‐life circumstances (Ortiz de Guinea & Webster, ). If the context is left unexamined, the findings can accordingly be inadequate (Breward et al, ; Whetten, ).…”

“…As contextualised studies take the specifics of IS use into account, they can promote the accuracy and relevance of the research findings (Breward, Hassanein, & Head, ), benefit practice by providing empirical insights (Burton‐Jones & Volkoff, ), extend extant theoretical knowledge (Davison & Martinsons, ), and be helpful in better aligning IS use theorizations with how IS are actually employed in real‐life circumstances (Ortiz de Guinea & Webster, ). If the context is left unexamined, the findings can accordingly be inadequate (Breward et al, ; Whetten, ). As a result, IS researchers have called for “theories that focus on a specific context” because they “are considered to be vital in providing a rich understanding of a focal phenomenon and to meaningfully extend theories” (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, , p. 158).…”