We propose that constant exposure to advances in technology has resulted in an implicit association between technology and success that has conditioned decision makers to be overly optimistic about the potential for technology to drive successful outcomes. Three studies examine this phenomenon and explore the boundaries of this “technology effect.”
In Study 1, participants (N = 147) made simulated investment decisions where the information about technology was systematically varied. In Study 2 (N = 143), participants made decisions in a resource dilemma where technology was implicated in determining the amount of a resource available for harvest. Study 3 (N = 53 and N = 60) used two implicit association tests to examine the assumption that people associate technology with success.
Results supported our assumption about an implicit association between technology and success, as well as a “technology effect” bias in decision making. Signals of high performance trigger the effect, and the effect is more likely when the technology invoked is unfamiliar.
Excessive optimism that technology will result in success can have negative consequences. Individual investment decisions, organizational decisions to invest in R&D, and societal decisions to explore energy and climate change solutions might all be impacted by biased beliefs about the promise of technology.
We are the first to systematically examine the optimistic bias in the technology effect, its scope, and boundaries. This research raises decision makers’ awareness and initiates research examining how the abstract notion of technology can influence perceptions of technological advances.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Overconfidence is conceptualized both as certainty that one’s prediction (success or failure) is accurate (e.g., Klayman et al. 1999), and as certainty that a positive or successful outcome is more likely than it actually is (e.g., Malmendier and Tate 2005). The latter is akin to definitions of overoptimism (e.g., Jager et al. 2002) and is the type of overconfidence focused on in this manuscript. Hereafter, we refer to this as overoptimism.
Moore’s law is a description of the long-term trend that integrated circuits have tended to double in capacity every 2 years. This is most commonly linked to computer processing speed by the general public but relates also to things such as memory capacity and the number of pixels in digital cameras.
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(24), 9369.
Baca, S. P., Garbe, B. L., & Weiss, R. A. (2000). The rise of sector effects in major equity markets. Financial Analysts Journal, 56(5), 34–40.
Bain, R. (1937). Technology and state government. American Sociological Review, 2(6), 860–874.
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292.
Borges, B., Goldstein, D. G., Ortmann, A., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). Can ignorance beat the stock market. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristicsthat make us smart (pp. 59–72). New York: Oxford University.
Burrill, S. G. (2002). Biotech 2002: The 16th Annual Report on the Industry. San Francisco: Burrill & Company.
Burrill, S. G. (2011). Biotech 2011 life sciences: 25 years : Looking back to see ahead. San Francisco: Burrill & Company.
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367.
Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach. The American Economic Review, 89(1), 306–318.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.
Chandy, R. K., Prabhu, J. C., & Antia, K. D. (2003). What will the future bring? Dominance, technology expectations, and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 1–18.
Costa-Font, J., Mossialos, E., & Rudisill, C. (2009). Optimism and the perceptions of new risks. Journal of Risk Research, 12(1), 27–41.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1975). Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(2), 171–192.
Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421.
Golder, P. N., & Tellis, G. J. (1993). Pioneer advantage: Marketing logic or marketing legend? Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 158–170.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216.
Greenwald, A. G., Poelman, T. A., Ulmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17–41.
Griffin, R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). Laboratory research in management: Misconceptions and missed opportunities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(4), 301–311.
Hamilton, D. P. (2004). Biotech’s dismal bottom line: More than $40 billion in losses. Wall Street Journal, 20, A1–A8. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108499868760716023.
Hekman, D., Aquino, K., Owens, B., Mitchell, T., Schilpzand, P., & Leavitt, K. (2010). An examination of whether and how racial and gender biases influence customer satisfaction ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 238–264.
Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The tolerance for ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 58–65.
Hoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 406–420.
Hossain, T., & Morgan, J. (2006). …plus shipping and handling: Revenue (non) equivalence in field experiments on ebay. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 5(2), 1–27.
Huberman, G. (2001). Familiarity breeds investment. Review of Financial Studies, 14(3), 659–680.
Ilgen, D. R. (1986). Laboratory research: A question of when, not if. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 257–267). Lexington: Lexington Books.
Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson personality inventory—Revised manual. Port Heron: Sigma Assessment Systems Inc.
Jager, W., Janssen, M. A., & Vlek, C. A. J. (2002). How uncertainty stimulates over-harvesting in a resource dilemma: Three Process Explanations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(3), 247–263.
John, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2009). The best of strangers: Context dependent willingness to divulge personal information. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1430482. Accessed 1 Jan 2011.
Keh, H. T., Foo, M. D., & Lim, B. C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 125–148.
Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., González-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 216–247.
Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV: What we know (so far) about the method. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 59–102). New York: Guilford.
Leavitt, K., Fong, C. T., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Asking about well-being gets you half an answer: Intraindividual processes of implicit and explicit job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 672–687.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.
Lowe, R. A., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2006). Overoptimism and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Management Science, 52(2), 173–186.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. The Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661–2700.
Moore, G. E. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(1), 82–85.
Muthitcharoen, A., Palvia, P. C., & Grover, V. (2011). Building a model of technology preference: The case of channel choices. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 205–237.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the implicit association test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166–180.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts. In D. G. Johnson & J. M. Wetmore (Eds.), Technology and society: Building our sociotechnical future (pp. 107–140). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Pisano, G. P. (2006). Science business: The promise, the reality, and the future of biotech. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Reynolds, S., Leavitt, K., & Decelles, K. (2010). Automatic ethics: The effects of implicit assumptions and contextual cues on moral behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 752–760.
Rindova, V. P., & Petkova, A. P. (2007). When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organization Science, 18(2), 217–232.
Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Cambridge: Harvard University Business School Press.
Silverstein, S. (2009). Health care information technology, hospital responsibilities, and joint commission standards. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(4), 382.
Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. (2003). The relationship between overconfidence and the introduction of risky products: Evidence from a field study. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 139–150.
Soll, J. B. (1996). Determinants of overconfidence and miscalibration: The roles of random error and ecological structure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(2), 117–137.
Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time: The fault of epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124.
Uhlmann, E. L., Leavitt, K., Menges, J. I., Koopman, J., Howe, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Getting explicit about the implicit: A taxonomy of implicit measures and guide for their use in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 553–601.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 562–580.
Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., & Streukens, S. (2007). The effect of service employees’ technology readiness on technology acceptance. Information & Management, 44(2), 206–215.
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477.
Category Exemplars (IAT-1: Technology Industries)
“Technology”: Robotics, Semiconductors, Biotech, Pharmaceuticals, Aerospace, Nanotech, Genetics
“Non-Technology”: Trucking, Livestock, Restaurants, Groceries, Textiles, Insurance, Apparel
Category Exemplars (IAT-2: Technological Products)
“Technology”: Laser, Fiber Optics, Wifi, Satellite, Software, Nuclear Energy, Solar Cells
“Non-Technology”: Soap, Ruler, Shoe, Chair, Backpack, Hammer, Brick
Evaluative Exemplars (Both IAT-1 and -2)
“Success”: Victory, Solution, Achievement, Triumph, Win, Accomplishment, Advancement
“Failure”: Defeat, Flop, Lose, Breakdown, Fiasco, Malfunction, Disaster
About this article
Cite this article
Clark, B.B., Robert, C. & Hampton, S.A. The Technology Effect: How Perceptions of Technology Drive Excessive Optimism. J Bus Psychol 31, 87–102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9399-4
- Decision making
- Diagnostic cue
- Resource dilemma
- Implicit association test