Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Coping or threat? Unraveling the mechanisms enabling user acceptance of blockchain technologies

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Blockchain technology is rapidly emerging as one of the leading-edge technologies with various advantages that are highly applicable in various sectors. However, such benefits of blockchain also involve security and privacy concerns and could thus hinder the use of technology. Existing studies have made considerable efforts to understand the main aspects of blockchain adoption and acceptance using various theoretical models. However, studies considering users’ privacy and security concerns are considerably more scarce. To fill this important gap, we analyze factors influencing users’ intention to use blockchain regarding privacy and security concerns by bridging two theories, namely protection motivation theory (PMT) and task-technology fit (TTF) theory. Using survey data from 306 blockchain users in China, we employed structural equation modeling to empirically test our hypotheses. Results show that TTF positively impacts users’ invulnerability and self-efficacy, leading to blockchain transparency and increasing users’ intention to use the blockchain. This study provides useful theoretical and practical implications by suggesting that the relationship between TTF and PMT can serve as a theoretical background for adopting blockchain, and TTF can help business managers manage users’ security and privacy concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data available on request from the authors.

References

  1. Aste T, Tasca P, Matteo TD (2017) Blockchain technologies: the foreseeable impact on society and industry. Computer 50(9):18–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Queiroz MM, Fosso Wamba S (2019) Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: an empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. Int J Inf Manag 46:70–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Marikyan D, Papagiannidis S, Rana OF, Ranjan R (2022) Blockchain adoption: a study of cognitive factors underpinning decision making. Comput Hum Behav 131:107207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lian J-W, Chen C-T, Shen L-F, Chen H-M (2020) Understanding user acceptance of blockchain-based smart locker. Electron Libr 38(2):353–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Clohessy T, Treiblmaier H, Acton T, Rogers N (2020) Antecedents of blockchain adoption: an integrative framework. Strateg Chang 29(5):501–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liang T-P, Kohli R, Huang H-C, Li Z-L (2021) What drives the adoption of the blockchain technology? A fit-viability perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 38(2):314–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Taherdoost H (2022) A critical review of blockchain acceptance models—blockchain technology adoption frameworks and applications. Computers 11(2):24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. AL-Ashmori A, Basri SB, Dominic PDD, Capretz LF, Muneer A, Balogun AO, Gilal AR, Ali RF (2022) Classifications of sustainable factors in blockchain adoption: a literature review and bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 14(9):5176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaur V, Gaiha A (2020) Building a transparent supply chain blockchain can enhance trust, efficiency, and speed. Harv Bus Rev 98(3):94–103

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vitasek K, Bayliss J, Owen L, Srivastava N (2022) How walmart canada uses blockchain to solve supply-chain challenges. Harv Bus Rev 5

  11. Ahram T, Sargolzaei A, Sargolzaei S, Daniels J, Amaba B (2017) In Blockchain technology innovations, IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON), 8–10 June 2017, 2017; 2017; pp 137–141

  12. Chang S-J, Av W, Eden L (2020) From the editors: common method variance in international business research. J Int Bus Stud 41(2):174–184

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blockchains Top 5 blockchain security issues in 2022 (2022) Available online: https://101blockchains.com/blockchain-security-issues/ (Accessed 09

  14. Degirmenci K, Barros A (2021) In How secure is blockchain? extending the protection motivation theory with trust, Proceedings of the 27th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2021, ; 2021; p 1301

  15. Alazab M, Alhyari S, Awajan A, Abdallah AB (2021) Blockchain technology in supply chain management: an empirical study of the factors affecting user adoption/acceptance. Cluster Comput 24(1):83–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dehghani M, William Kennedy R, Mashatan A, Rese A, Karavidas D (2022) High interest, low adoption. A mixed-method investigation into the factors influencing organisational adoption of blockchain technology. J Bus Res 149:393–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pawczuk L, Holdowsky J, Massey R, Hansen B (2020) From promise to reality: Deloitte’s 2020 global blockchain survey. Deloitte Consulting LLP, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  18. Roh T, Park BI, Xiao SS (2023) Adoption of AI-enabled robo-advisors in fintech: simultaneous employment of UTAUT and the theory of reasoned action. J Electron Commer 24(1):29–47

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Kumar V, Belhadi A, Foropon C (2021) A machine learning based approach for predicting blockchain adoption in supply chain. Technol Forecast Soc Change 163:120465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Albayati H, Kim SK, Rho JJ (2020) Accepting financial transactions using blockchain technology and cryptocurrency: a customer perspective approach. Tehcnol Soc 62:101320

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wong L-W, Tan GW-H, Lee V-H, Ooi K-B, Sohal A (2020) Unearthing the determinants of blockchain adoption in supply chain management. Int J Product Res 58(7):2100–2123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hughes L, Dwivedi YK, Misra SK, Rana NP, Raghavan V, Akella V (2019) Blockchain research, practice and policy: applications, benefits, limitations, emerging research themes and research agenda. Int J Inf Manag 49:114–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kavanagh D, Ennis PJ (2020) Cryptocurrencies and the emergence of blockocracy. Inf Soc 36(5):290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Boss SR, Galletta DF, Lowry PB, Moody GD, Polak P (2015) What do systems users have to fear? Using fear appeals to engender threats and fear that motivate protective security behaviors. MIS Q 39(4):837–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Boerman SC, Kruikemeier S, Zuiderveen Borgesius FJ (2021) Exploring motivations for online privacy protection behavior: insights from panel data. Commun Res 48(7):953–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cloarec J (2022) Privacy controls as an information source to reduce data poisoning in artificial intelligence-powered personalization. J Bus Res 152:144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goodhue DL, Thompson RL (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q 19(2):213–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91(1):93–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Maddux JE, Rogers RW (1983) Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 19(5):469–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ifinedo P (2012) Understanding information systems security policy compliance: an integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Comput Secur 31(1):83–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Menard P, Bott GJ, Crossler RE (2017) User motivations in protecting information security: protection motivation theory versus self-determination theory. J Manag Inf Syst 34(4):1203–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rogers RW (1983) Cognitive and psychological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J, Petty R (eds) Social psychophysiology: a sourcebook. Guilford Press, New York, pp 153–176

    Google Scholar 

  33. Woon I, Tan G-W, Low R (2005) In A protection motivation theory approach to home wireless security, 26th International Conference on Information Systems, Las Vegas, USA, ; Las Vegas, USA, 2005; pp 367–380

  34. Chenoweth T, Minch R, Gattiker T (2009) In Application of protection motivation theory to adoption of protective technologies, 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5–8 Jan. 2009, 2009; 2009; pp 1–10

  35. Alashoor T, Han S, Joseph RC (2017) Familiarity with big data, privacy concerns, and self-disclosure accuracy in social networking websites: an APCO model. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 41:62–96

    Google Scholar 

  36. Crossler R, Bélanger F (2014) An extended perspective on individual security behaviors. Data Base Adv Inf Syst 45(4):51–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goodhue D (1988) I/S attitudes: toward theoretical and definitional clarity. ACM SIGMIS database: the DATABASE for advances. Inform Syst 19(3–4):6–15

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wang X, Wong YD, Chen T, Yuen KF (2021) Adoption of shopper-facing technologies under social distancing: a conceptualisation and an interplay between task-technology fit and technology trust. Comput Hum Behav 124:106900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhou T, Lu Y, Wang B (2010) Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption. Comput Hum Behav 26(4):760–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Aljukhadar M, Senecal S, Nantel J (2014) Is more always better? Investigating the task-technology fit theory in an online user context. Inf Manag 51(4):391–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Walsh C, O’Reilly P, Gleasure R, McAvoy J, O’Leary K (2021) Understanding manager resistance to blockchain systems. Eur Manag J 39(3):353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Luo Y, Wang G, Li Y, Ye Q (2021) Examining protection motivation and network externality perspective regarding the continued intention to use m-health apps. In Int J Environ Res Public Health, ; Vol. 18

  43. Hsieh P-J, Lai H-M (2020) Exploring people’s intentions to use the health passbook in self-management: an extension of the technology acceptance and health behavior theoretical perspectives in health literacy. Technol Forecast Soc Change 161:120328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee Y, Larsen KR (2009) Threat or coping appraisal: determinants of SMB executives’ decision to adopt anti-malware software. Eur J Inf Syst 18(2):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lee Y (2011) Understanding anti-plagiarism software adoption: an extended protection motivation theory perspective. Decis Support Syst 50(2):361–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Laugesen J, Hassanein K (2017) Adoption of personal health records by chronic disease patients: a research model and an empirical study. Comput Hum Behav 66:256–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lin T-C, Huang C-C (2008) Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents: an integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit. Inf Manag 45(6):410–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shahbaz M, Gao C, Zhai L, Shahzad F, Khan I (2021) Environmental air pollution management system: predicting user adoption behavior of big data analytics. Tehcnol Soc 64:101473

    Google Scholar 

  49. Goodhue LD (1998) Development and measurement validity of a task-technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information system. Decis Sci 29(1):105–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dishaw MT, Strong DM (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs. Inf Manag 36(1):9–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yen DC, Wu C-S, Cheng F-F, Huang Y-W (2010) Determinants of users’ intention to adopt wireless technology: an empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM. Comput Hum Behav 26(5):906–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Goodhue LD (1995) Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Manag Sci 41(12):1827–1844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Roth T, Stohr A, Amend J, Fridgen G, Rieger A (2022) Blockchain as a driving force for federalism: a theory of cross-organizational task-technology fit. Int J Inf Manag forthcoming

  54. Forbes 13 evolving and emerging uses for blockchain technology. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/06/10/13-evolving-and-emerging-uses-for-blockchain-technology/?sh=50665331162e

  55. Ahl A, Yarime M, Tanaka K, Sagawa D (2019) Review of blockchain-based distributed energy: implications for institutional development. Renew Sust Energ Rev 107:200–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Niu B, Shen Z, Xie F (2021) The value of blockchain and agricultural supply chain parties’ participation confronting random bacteria pollution. J Clean Prod 319:128579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Larsen TJ, Sørebø AM, Sørebø Ø (2009) The role of task-technology fit as users’ motivation to continue information system use. Comput Hum Behav 25(3):778–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rawlins B (2008) Give the emperor a mirror: toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. J Public Relat Res 21(1):71–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Klaidman S (1987) The virtuous journalist, vol 98. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 861–863

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stirton L, Lodge M (2001) Transparency mechanisms: building publicness into public services. J Law Soc 28(4):471–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Chen Z-J, Vogel D, Wang Z-H (2016) How to satisfy citizens? Using mobile government to reengineer fair government processes. Decis Support Syst 82:47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kim Y, Roh T (2022) Preparing an exhibition in the post-pandemic era: evidence from an O2O-based exhibition of B2B firms. Technol Forecast Soc Change 185:122041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wu B, Chen X (2017) Continuance intention to use MOOCs: integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Comput Hum Behav 67:221–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. DeFranco A, Morosan C (2017) Coping with the risk of internet connectivity in hotels: perspectives from american consumers traveling internationally. Tour Manag 61:380–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Chang V, Baudier P, Zhang H, Xu Q, Zhang J, Arami M (2020) How blockchain can impact financial services – the overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees. Technol Forecast Soc Change 158:120166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Baruh L, Secinti E, Cemalcilar Z (2017) Online privacy concerns and privacy management: a meta-analytical review. J Commun 67(1):26–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ham C-D (2017) Exploring how consumers cope with online behavioral advertising. Iint J Advert 36(4):632–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ham C-D, Nelson MR (2016) The role of persuasion knowledge, assessment of benefit and harm, and third-person perception in coping with online behavioral advertising. Comput Hum Behav 62:689–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bandara R, Fernando M, Akter S (2021) Managing consumer privacy concerns and defensive behaviours in the digital marketplace. Eur J Mark 55(1):219–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wottrich VM, van Reijmersdal EA, Smit EG (2019) App users unwittingly in the spotlight: a model of privacy protection in mobile apps. J Consum Aff 53(3):1056–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Milne GR, Labrecque LI, Cromer C (2009) Toward an understanding of the online consumer’s risky behavior and protection practices. J Consum Aff 43(3):449–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Bandura A (1993) Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ Psychol 28(2):117–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Zhang D, Zhao JL, Zhou L, Nunamaker JF Jr (2004) Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Commun ACM 47(5):75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. McGill TJ, Klobas JE (2009) A task–technology fit view of learning management system impact. Comput Educ 52(2):496–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Shin D-H (2010) The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking: a security-based approach to understand the pattern of adoption. Interact Comput 22(5):428–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kim K-H, Yun H (2007) Cying for me, cying for us: relational dialectics in a korean social network site. J Comput-Mediat Comm 13(1):298–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Mou J, Shin D-H, Cohen JF (2017) Trust and risk in consumer acceptance of e-services. Electron Commer Res 17(2):255–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Roh T, Yang YS, Xiao S, Park BI (2022) What makes consumers trust and adopt fintech? An empirical investigation in China. Electron Commer Res forthcoming

  79. Shin D-H (2013) User experience in social commerce: in friends we trust. Behav Inf Technol 32(1):52–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kim Y, Wang Q, Roh T (2021) Do information and service quality affect perceived privacy protection, satisfaction, and loyalty? Evidence from a chinese O2O-based mobile shopping application. Telemat Inf 56:101483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Awaysheh A, Klassen RD (2010) The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices. Int J Oper Prod Manag 30(12):1246–1268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Kshetri N (2018) 1 Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. Int J Inf Manag 39:80–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Forbes This emerging tech company has put Asia’s tuna on the blockchain. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/keshiahannam/2016/09/30/this-emerging-tech-company-has-put-asias-tuna-on-the-blockchain/?sh=3b3ac7192649

  84. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Liu N, Ye Z (2021) Empirical research on the blockchain adoption – based on TAM. Appl Econ 53(37):4263–4275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Kamble S, Gunasekaran A, Arha H (2019) Understanding the blockchain technology adoption in supply chains-indian context. Int J Product Res 57(7):2009–2033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Johnson RE, Rosen CC, Djurdjevic E (2011) Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. J Appl Soc Psychol 96(4):744–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Soc Psychol 88(5):879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Malaquias RF, Hwang Y (2016) An empirical study on trust in mobile banking: a developing country perspective. Comput Hum Behav 54:453–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Chang HH (2008) Intelligent agent’s technology characteristics applied to online auctions’ task: a combined model of TTF and TAM. Technovation 28(9):564–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Meuter ML, Bitner MJ, Ostrom AL, Brown SW (2005) Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. J Mark 69(2):61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Morgan TR, Richey RG Jr, Ellinger AE (2018) Supplier transparency: scale development and validation. Int J Logist Manag 29(3):959–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Maruping LM, Bala H, Venkatesh V, Brown SA (2017) Going beyond intention: integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 68(3):623–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Richter NF, Cepeda-Carrion G, Roldán Salgueiro JL, Ringle CM (2016) European management research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur Manag J 34(6):589–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Venaik S, Midgley DF, Devinney TM (2005) Dual paths to performance: the impact of global pressures on MNC subsidiary conduct and performance. J Int Bus Stud 36(6):655–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Zott C, Amit R (2008) The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Strateg Manag J 29(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod Methods Bus Res 295(2):295–336

    Google Scholar 

  100. Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg Manag J 20(2):195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Funds.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Global Business, Kyungil University, 50, Gamasil-gil, Hayang-eup, Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, 38428, South Korea

    Soo Jung Oh

  2. Division of Business Administration, Sookmyung Women’s University, 100, Cheongpa-ro 47-gil, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 04310, South Korea

    Shufeng (Simon) Xiao

  3. College of Business, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 270, Imun-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-791, South Korea

    Byung Il Park

  4. School of International Studies, Hanyang University, 222, Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, South Korea

    Taewoo Roh

Authors
  1. Soo Jung Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shufeng (Simon) Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Byung Il Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Taewoo Roh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shufeng (Simon) Xiao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Soo Jung Oh is the First author.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oh, S.J., Xiao, S.(., Park, B.I. et al. Coping or threat? Unraveling the mechanisms enabling user acceptance of blockchain technologies. Inf Technol Manag (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-023-00409-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-023-00409-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation