Advertisement

Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Modeling social learning on consumers’ long-term usage of a mobile technology: a Bayesian estimation of a Bayesian learning model

  • Haijing HaoEmail author
  • Rema Padman
  • Baohong Sun
  • Rahul Telang
Article
First Online:
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

Studies on how social influence impacts individuals’ social learning during the technology adoption process have increased over the last few decades. However, few studies have examined the social learning effects on individual consumers’ learning at the post-adoption stage, or long-term usage. The present study intends to fill this gap. We construct a Bayesian learning model to investigate consumers’ learning process at the post-adoption stage and how social learning effects influence individuals’ learning at this stage. The model result shows that, among the two social learning effects, influential peer effects (early adopters) are not significantly different from general peer effects at the post-adoption stage; i.e., users no longer treated early adopters differently from general peers. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies that investigates social learning effects on consumers’ learning at the post-adoption stage by using a Bayesian learning model, which uncovers the underlying mechanism of people’s long-term use of technology.

Keywords

Individual learning Social learning Bayesian learning Post-adoption Social influence Bayesian estimation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(1997), 557–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agarwal, R., Angst, C. M., DesRoches, C. M., & Fischer, M. A. (2010). Technological viewpoints (frames) about electronic prescribing in physician practices. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, 17, 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahuja, M. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bandura, A. (1976). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casella, G., & George, E. (1992). Explaining the Gibbs sampler. American Statistician, 46, 167–174.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ching, A., & Ishihara, M. (2010). The effects of detailing on prescribing decisions under quality uncertainty. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2010(8), 123–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ching, A. T., Erdem, T., & Keane, M. P. (2013). Invited paper—Learning models: An assessement of progress, challenges, and new developments. Marketing Science, 32(6), 913–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ching, A., Erdem, T., & Keane, M. P. (2014). A simple method to estimate the roles of learning, inventories and category consideration in consumer choice. Journal of Choice Modelling, 13, 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ching, A. T., Erdem, T., & Keane, M. P. (2017). Empirical models of learning dynamics: A survey of recent developments. In B. Wierenga & R. van der Lans (Eds.), Handbook of marketing decision models (Vol. 254)., International series in operations research & management science Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeGroot, M. H. (1970). Optimal statistical decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erdem, T., & Keane, M. P. (1996). Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing Science, 15, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erdem, T., Keane, M., & Sun, B. (2008). A dynamic model of brand choice when price and advertising signal product quality. Marketing Science, 27(2008), 1111–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2004). Bayesian data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984). Stochastic relaxation Gibbs distributions and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6, 721–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hao, H., Padman, R., & Telang, R. (2011). An empirical study of opinion leader effects on mobile information technology adoption in healthcare. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2011, 537.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hao, H., Padman, R., Sun, B., & Telang, R. (2014). Examining the social influence on information technology sustained use in a community health system: A hierarchical Bayesian learning method analysis. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) (pp. 2751–2758).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hao, H., Padman, R., Sun, B., & Telang, R. (2018). Quantifying the impact of social influence on the information technology implementation process by physicians: A hierarchical Bayesian learning approach. Information Systems Research, 29(2018), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hao, H., & Padman, R. (2018). An empirical study of opinion leader effects on mobile technology implementation by physicians in an American community health system. Health Informatics Journal, 24(3), 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hastings, W. (1970). Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika, 57, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang, T. L., & Liao, S. (2015). A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology: The moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electronic Commerce Research, 15, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iyengar, R., Ansari, A., & Gupta, S. (2007). A model of consumer learning for service quality and usage. Journal of Marketing Research, XLIV, 529–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Manchanda, P., Xie, Y., & Youn, N. (2008). The role of targeted communication and contagion in product adoption. Marketing Science, 27, 961–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manski, C. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60, 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A., Rosenbluth, M., Teller, A., & Teller, E. (1953). Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Narayanan, S., Manchanda, P., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2005). Temporal differences in the role of marketing communication in new product categories. Journal of Marketing Research, XLII, 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Narayanan, S., Chintagunta, P. K., & Miravete, E. J. (2007). The role of self selection, usage uncertainty and learning in the demand for local telephone service. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2007(5), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peng, L., Liao, Q., Wang, X., & He, X. (2016). Factors affecting female user information adoption: an empirical investigation on fashion shopping guide websites. Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Riedl, C., & Seidel, V. P. (2018) Learning from mixed signals in online innovation communities.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1219.
  31. 31.
    Roberts, J. H., & Urban, G. (1988). Modeling multiattribute utility, risk and belief dynamics for new consumer durable brand choice. Management Science, 34(Feb), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rossi, P. E., Allenby, G., & McCulloch, R. (2006). bayesian statistics and marketing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sila, I. (2013). Factors affecting the adoption of B2B e-commerce technologies. Electronic Commerce Research, 13, 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Song, I., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2003). A Micromodel of new product adoption with heterogeneous and forward-looking consumers: Application to the digital camera category. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1, 371–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sorensen, A. T. (2006). Social learning and health plan choice. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(4), 929–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yang, K., & Folly, L. D. (2008). Age cohort analysis in adoption of mobile data services: Gen Xers versus baby boomers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25, 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zarmpou, T., Saprikis, V., Markos, A., & Vlachopoulou, M. (2012). Modeling users’ acceptance of mobile services. Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang, L., Luo, M., & Boncella, R. J. (2018). Product information diffusion in a social network. Electronic Commerce Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-018-9316-9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management Science and Information Systems, College of ManagementUniversity of Massachusetts - BostonBostonUSA
  2. 2.Heinz CollegeCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Cheung Kong Graduate School of BusinessNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options