Understanding Personal Mobile Technologies: Decomposing and De-Averaging the Value of a Smartphone

Abstract

The study focuses on the multifaceted motives for adopting personal technologies. Specifically, it uses earlier models of technology adoption to develop a model of smartphone acceptance. The model is unique in that it decomposes attitudinal beliefs into three components: functional value, hedonic value, and symbolic value. Latent class analysis facilitates the identification of three user types. The analysis shows that value drivers, control beliefs, and normative beliefs play different roles for determining smartphone acceptance, depending on three different individual characteristics (i.e., playfulness, public self-consciousness, and innovativeness). The paper makes a contribution to the information systems literature by providing an analysis of the drivers of overall value perceptions for multipurpose information appliances and of the role of individual differences among potential users in forming these attitudes.

Smartphone use during shopping and store loyalty: the role of social influence

“…Shrihari and Srinivasan (2012) revealed the moderation role of other consumers' online ratings in the relationship between product experience or failure and reviewers' online product ratings. Thus, we expect social influence to play a moderation role in the relationship between in-store mobile use and store loyalty, notably through other consumers' online ratings (Shrihari and Srinivasan, 2012), but also more generally through social norms (Arbore et al, 2014). Specifically, we expect the effect of smartphone use on loyalty to be weaker when social influence is higher.…”

“…Finally, as Arbore et al (2014, p.169) remind us paraphrasing Levy (1959), people adopt personal and ubiquitous technologies, such as smartphones, not only for what they do (i.e., their utilitarian and hedonic value) but also because of what they mean (i.e., their symbolic value). Thus, innovation provides positive symbolic value based on its ability to support identity-signaling goals (Arbore et al, 2014). Specifically, being more effective and benefiting from specific discounts through in-store mobile use can increase self-esteem and thus symbolic value (de Kerviler et al, 2016b).…”

“…More specifically, social influence affects both smartphone use (Arbore et al, 2014;De Kerviler et al, 2016a, 2016b and purchase intentions (e.g. Giovanis et al, 2018;Grewal et al, 2018).…”

“…These findings extend prior studies on social influence, store value and loyalty. The literature tells us that social influence facilitates the adoption and diffusion of technologies (Arbore et al, 2014;Venkatesh et al, 2003Venkatesh et al, , 2012 through the reduction of perceived risk and information transfer among individuals (Van den Bulte and Lilien, 2001). This research extends prior studies (Giovanis et al, 2018;Osei-Frimpong, 2019) and enriches our knowledge of the specific effects of social influence.…”

Big Questions in AIS Research: Measurement, Information Processing, Data Analysis, and Reporting

“…As such, how accountants accept and adopt this technology needs to be studied. Arbore, Graziani, and Venturini (2014) explore the multifaceted motives for embracing personal technologies, such as smart phones. The authors decompose attitudinal beliefs into three components: functional value, hedonic value, and symbolic value.…”