Toward a Model of Mindfulness in Technology Acceptance

Heshan SUN

School of Information Resources and Library Science

University of Arizona

Table of Contents

–Introduction –Motivation & Theory–Research Model–Research Methods–Data Analysis and Results–Discussion

Yulin FANG

Department of Information Systems

City University of Hong Kong

March 9th, 2011

Introduction

• Technology acceptance is a popular topic.

• Information technologies are essentially complex innovations and, accordingly, people are often uncertain about accepting them.

• As a result of uncertainty, people may make the ‘wrong’ decision and accept technically inferior or ill-fitting innovations (Abrahamson 1991).

• Developing a research model to explain user acceptance of technology under the situation of complexity and uncertainty, by drawing upon the theory of Mindfulness.

• By studying mindfulness, we can help answer such questions as why technically inferior information systems are accepted and how people can employ mindfulness to resolve uncertainty in the technology acceptance process.

Current Situation

Our approach to address the issue:

Motivation

• Contemporary research has held an “efficient-choice” assumption that people always have easy access to needed information to form their beliefs and intentions to use (Abrahamson 1991).

• Although some research (e.g., Bhattacherjee 2001; Kim 2009) has studied how users update their initial beliefs about a technology after adoption, the informational aspect of initial technology acceptance has rarely been addressed.

• People do not have all the information about a technology and may be uncertain about accepting the technology being considered.

• As a result of this uncertainty, people may make the ‘wrong’ decision and accept technically inferior or ill-fitting innovations (Abrahamson 1991).

Why Uncertainty

Motivation

Why Mindfulness Theory

• Mindfulness is a state of alertness and lively awareness (Langer 1986; Langer 1989b). In overcoming the uncertainties resulting from lack of information, an important factor is one’s mindfulness.

• We can help answer why technically inferior information systems are accepted and how people can employ mindfulness to resolve uncertainty in the technology acceptance process.

Theory- Mindfulness

A state of mindfulness is revealed by active information seeking and processing, constant creation of new categories, awareness of local specifics, and openness to multiple perspectives (Langer 1989a; Langer 1997)

- Active information seeking and processing

one recognizes informational cues and actively considers them (Langer 1989a).

- Constant creation of new categories

a mindful person is aware of the nuanced differences between the task at hand with those he/she has been familiar with in the past (Weick et al. 1999).

- Awareness of local specifics

“the identification of needs, conflicts, and existential concerns” (Brown and Ryan 2003 p.822).

- Openness to multiple perspectives

A person is more likely to consider a wider range of consequences of a decision, e.g., both the pros and cons of it.

Theory - Mindfulness in Technology Acceptance (MTA)

Mindfulness has been studied in prior research as a personal trait (Kohls et al. 2009) or as a state factor (Langer 1989a). We define MTA as a state of being.

Figure 1. Proposed Dimensions of Mindfulness in Technology Acceptance

Mindfulness in Technology Acceptance (MTA)

Active information searching

/processing

Creation of new category

Awareness of own needs

Openness to alternatives

Examples of MTA

• Scenario 1 (Mindful acceptance): I recently purchased an iPad. At first, I was uncertain about what an iPad was or how I could benefit from it. I figured the iPad was either a smaller, less powerful laptop or a just a larger iPod. I did some research on it, however, reading articles and expert reviews about the iPad as well as opinions from other users. By this time I was much certain what it could do and I knew it could meet my needs: the iPad is functionally different from a laptop and can satisfy my needs for a more mobile device for simple tasks such as checking email and reading e-books. Its battery of 10-hour life is very useful for a frequent traveler like me. In addition, I knew clearly that I could handle it. So I use it.

• Scenario 2 (Mindless acceptance): I did not know much about iPad when I first heard of it. It seems to be just a smaller laptop. I was not sure what it was and what it could do for me. Based on my very limited knowledge about it, iPad did not seem to be useful for me at all. So why should I use it?

Uncertainty

• Milliken (1987) identified three types of uncertainty. This research defines uncertainty of technology acceptance as follows.

Table 1. Types and Definitions of Uncertainty

Milliken’s definition (1987) Our definition of uncertainty in

technology acceptance

State uncertainty

Perception that the environment or a particular component of that environment is unpredictable.

One’s inability to recognize the technology appropriately

Effect uncertainty

An inability to predict what the nature of the impact of a future state of the environment or environmental change will be on the organization.

One’s inability to predict if an IS could meet his/her needs.

Response uncertainty

A lack of knowledge of response options and/or an inability to predict the likely consequences of a response choice.

One’s inability to predict his/her response to any updates/changes of the technology.

Complexity

• Complexity is defined as the degree to which an information system is perceived as difficult to learn and use (Thompson et al. 1991).

• Such a lack of comprehensible information about a technology makes one feel more uncertain about the acceptance decision (Akerlof 1970; Spence 1973; Stiglitz 1975).

Research Model

Perceived Complexity

Perceived Usefulness

Mindfulness

Intention to Use

Uncertainty

H1(-)

H4(-)

H3(-)H5(+)

H2(+)

H6(+)

Figure 2. The Research Model

Research Methods

• Research Context ： Acceptance of PBwiki (http://pbworks.com/)

A wiki system allows users to work on the same web pages as a collective project—these systems have great potential for use in information systems research and for IS practitioners (Kane and Fichman 2009).

• Data Collection ： online questionnaire

• Sample：– 723 randomly selected people who voluntarily registered with StudyResponse. They were in

three occupational categories: banking, finance, and management.– The data used in this research was collected using a single method at a single point in time. – 160 valid responses

• Demographic characteristics of the sample Table2

Measures

Constructs Sources

Perceived usefulness and intention to useAdapted from Bhattacherjee and

Premkumar’s research (2004)

Perceived complexity of a technologyAdapted from Technology Acceptance

Model (Davis 1989)

Mindfulness in technology acceptance Self-developed, following the procedure by

Moore and Benbasat (1991).

Uncertainty of technology acceptanceSelf-developed, following the procedure by

set forth by Moore and Benbasat (1991).

Items for Mindfulness and Uncertainty

Mindfulness: • MF1 (creation of new category): PBwiki seems to be different from any technologies that I had

used before. • MF2 (active information searching): I looked for additional information about PBwiki from sources

other than its own website. • MF3 (openness to multiple perspectives): I know of alternatives to PBwiki.• MF4 (awareness of own needs): I know clearly how PBwiki matches my specific needs. • MF5 (creation of new category): PBwiki is a new type of technology for me.

Uncertainty• UN1 (state uncertainty): I have NOT recognized what PBwiki is about.• UN2 (effect uncertainty): My needs for collaboration can NOT be resolved by using PBwiki. • UN3 (response uncertainty): I do NOT think that I am able to respond appropriately to any

changes/updates of PBwiki.

Data Analysis and Results （ 1）• Data analysis tool – PLS (Partial Least Square)

Perceived Complexity

(R2=0.03)

Perceived Usefulness

(R2=0.24)

Mindfulness

Intention to Use

(R2=0.59)

Uncertainty(R2=0.23)

H1: -.240*

H4: -306***

H3: -.184 (ns)

H5: .342***

H2:.323***

H6: .193*

.663***

* Significance at p<0.05*** Significance at p<0.001ns: Non-significance

Figure 3. PLS Results of the Proposed Research Model

Data Analysis and Results （ 2）

• Mediation - A partial mediating effect of perceived usefulness (PU) on the relationship between mindfulness and intention to use.

– When PU is excluded, mindfulness has a significant overall effect on intention to use (b=0.486, t=6.995, p<0.001).

When PU is introduced, mindfulness still demonstrates a significant direct effect on intention to use (b=0.203, t=3.583, p<0.001).

The indirect effect of mindfulness on intention to use is 0.285 with a 95% BC bootstrap Confidence Interval (CI) of 0.133 and 0.414.

Discussion

• We developed the constructs of mindfulness and uncertainty in the context of user technology acceptance.

• First, mindfulness was confirmed to reduce uncertainty about the acceptance of a technology and to significantly influence the formation of user beliefs about a technology and their intention to use it.

• Second, mindfulness has a direct influence on one’s intention to use, beyond its indirect impact via user beliefs.

• Third, Hypothesis 4 about the impact of mindfulness on the complexity of technology was not confirmed; Mindfulness does not reduce people’s perception of the complexity of PBwiki.– PBwiki is not a very complex system and using it is relatively simple and straightforward.

Limitation

• First, the sample size was relatively small.

• Second, the use of PBwiki as the research technology may have limited our understanding of the research model.

• Third, the organizational context was not effectively controlled. – The invitees for the survey were from multiple organizations; therefore organizational factors

could have had an effect on the factors in the research model.

Contribution

• Conceptually, this research systematically developed two concepts: mindfulness in technology acceptance and uncertainty of technology acceptance.

• Theoretically, this paper develops a research model of mindfulness in technology acceptance. – Describes how mindful behavior influences user technology acceptance by reducing uncertainty

about the adoption decision, enhancing one’s beliefs about the usefulness of the technology, and directly affecting one’s intention to use.

• Methodologically, this research systematically developed instruments for measuring mindfulness and uncertainty in technology acceptance.

Research Implications

• Mindfulness plays an important role in alleviating uncertainties in technology acceptance. Studying uncertainty in technology acceptance helps us explicitly deal with the efficient-choice problem.

• Information economics—dealing with such topics as information asymmetry and transparency (e.g., Akerlof 1970), signaling (e.g., Spence 1973), and screening (e.g., Stiglitz 1975)—may be valuable for IS research when studying technology acceptance.

• Mindfulness may help in overcoming bandwagon behavior

• This research also has implications for studying habitual/automatic system use.

Practical Implications

• IT practitioners can focus on four things to help users make a mindful decision.

- Lead users to relevant, updated, and well-formatted information.

- Explicitly discuss with users how the technology being introduced differs from those already being used.

- Present how this technology can be used for different units and/or different types of tasks.

- Remind users of both the pros and cons of this system, as well as other alternatives.

• For technology users, our results shows the benefits of being mindful in accepting a technology. – Actively collecting and processing information about a technology, comparing it with existing

technologies, being aware of the local contexts, and being open to alternative perspectives regarding the technology being accepted can reduce the uncertainty one may face when accepting this technology.

• Thank you!• Questions/Comments?

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the sample

Variables Sample Composition

Age Mean = 36.38; std. dev = 9.71; range 21-65

GenderFemale 56%

Male 44%

Highest Education Level Attained

PhD, MD, JD or other advanced degree 1.2%

Master degree 14.4%

Some graduate school, no degree 10.0%

4 year college degree 40.6%

Some degree, no degree 18.8%

Associate degree 8.8%

High school 6.2%

back

back

Table 3. The instrument

Construct Item† Mean Std.Dv

Uncertainty(self-developed)

UN1 (state uncertainty): I have NOT recognized what PBwiki is about. 3.29 1.813

UN2 (effect uncertainty): My needs for collaboration can NOT be resolved by using PBwiki. 3.49 1.759

UN3 (response uncertainty): I do NOT think that I am able to respond appropriately to any changes/updates of PBwiki. 3.15 1.691

Mindfulness(self-developed)

MF1 (creation of new category): PBwiki seems to be different from any technologies that I had used before. 4.59 1.305

MF2 (active information searching): I looked for find additional information about PBwiki from sources other than its own website.

4.24 1.866

MF3 (openness to multiple perspectives): I know of alternatives to PBwiki. 3.92 1.770

MF4 (awareness of own needs): I know clearly how PBwiki matches my specific needs at study. 4.70 1.709

MF5 (creation of new category): PBwiki is a new type of technology for me. 4.61 1.756

Complexity(Adapted from

Thompson et al. 1991)

CO1. Using PBwiki can take too much time from my normal duties. 2.63 1.013

CO2. Working with PBwiki seems complicated; it is difficult to understand what is going on. 2.51 1.070

CO3. Using PBwiki involves too much time doing mechanical operations (e.g., data input). 2.64 .994

CO4. It may take too long to learn how to use PBwiki to make it worth the effort. 2.51 1.093

Perceived usefulness(Adapted from

Bhattacherjee and Premkumar 2004)

PU1. Using PBwiki will improve my performance. 4.47 1.505

PU 2. Using PBwiki will increase my productivity. 4.51 1.554

PU 3. Using PBwiki will enhance my effectiveness. 4.62 1.570

PU 4. PBwiki will be useful for my collaborations with others. 5.15 1.649

Intention to Use (Adapted from Bhattacherjee and Premkumar 2004)

IU1. I plan to continue using PBwiki for collaboration. 4.09 1.651

IU2. I intend to continue using PBwiki for my future work. 4.01 1.650

IU3. It is very likely that I will use PBwiki in the near future. 4.26 1.867

† Complexity is measured by a five-point Likert scale, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree”, and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to be consistent with its original source. Other constructs are measured by a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree”, and 7 being “Strongly Agree”.

 

Table 4. Reliability, Validity, and Correlations

N. of Items

CR CA AVECorrelations†

1 2 3 4 5

1. Perceived usefulness 4 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.94

2. Intention to use 3 0.96 0.94 0.89 0.75 0.95

3. Complexity 4 0.92 0.89 0.74 -0.33 -0.35 0.86

4. Mindfulness 5 0.85 0.78 0.54 0.43 0.48 -0.18 0.73

5. Uncertainty 3 0.89 0.82 0.73 -0.37 -0.37 0.38 -0.37 0.86

CR: Composite Reliability; CA: Cronbach’s Alpha AVE: Average Variance Extracted; † The diagonal Elements (in bold) are the square roots of the variance shared between the constructs and their measurement (AVE).

back

Table 5. Loadings and Cross-LoadingsPerceived Usefulness

(PU)Intention to Use

(IU)Complexity

(CO)Mindfulness

(MF)Uncertainty

(UN)

PU1 0.95 0.73 -0.33 0.43 -0.34

PU2 0.97 0.75 -0.33 0.42 -0.32

PU3 0.95 0.70 -0.35 0.43 -0.38

PU4 0.88 0.60 -0.23 0.32 -0.34

IU1 0.74 0.97 -0.34 0.48 -0.35

IU2 0.75 0.98 -0.35 0.48 -0.34

IU3 0.62 0.89 -0.30 0.39 -0.35

CO1 -0.36 -0.37 0.86 -0.22 0.40

CO2 -0.25 -0.28 0.86 -0.15 0.27

CO3 -0.26 -0.26 0.89 -0.10 0.32

CO4 -0.24 -0.26 0.83 -0.14 0.26

MF1 0.29 0.30 -0.19 0.65 -0.26

MF2 0.32 0.35 -0.07 0.76 -0.22

MF3 0.35 0.49 -0.07 0.68 -0.22

MF4 0.30 0.31 -0.19 0.85 -0.29

MF5 0.30 0.27 -0.16 0.72 -0.35

UN1 -0.36 -0.38 0.28 -0.35 0.85

UN2 -0.30 -0.25 0.35 -0.31 0.89

UN3 -0.26 -0.30 0.34 -0.27 0.83

back