Abstract
Social influence has been shown to profoundly affect human behavior in general and technology adoption in particular. Over time, multiple definitions and measures of social influence have been introduced to the field of technology adoption research, contributing to an increasingly fragmented landscape of constructs that challenges the conceptual integrity of the field. Consequently, this paper sets out to review how social influence has been conceptualized in technology adoption research. In so doing, this paper attempts to inform researchers’ understanding of the construct, reconcile its myriad conceptualizations, constructively challenge extant approaches, and provide impulses for future research. A systematic review of the salient literature uncovers that extant interpretations of social influence are (1) predominantly compliance-based and as such risk overlooking identification- and internalization-based effects; (2) primarily targeted at the individual level and non-social technologies, thereby precluding the impact of socially enriched environments; and (3) heavily reliant on survey-based and US/China-centric samples, which jeopardizes the generalizability and predictive validity of the findings. Building upon these insights, this paper develops an integrated perspective on social influence in technology adoption research that encourages scholars to pursue a multi-theoretical understanding of social influence at the interface of users, social referents, and technology.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This condition was only applied to papers published up to and including 2011. All papers from 2012 onwards were reviewed individually to prevent the timeframe since publication to act as a limiting factor on the number of citations. Using the year 2011 as a cut-off allowed for a roughly stable number of papers per year in the final sample.
Subsequently superseded by the UTAUT, in which the indirect effect of subjective norm was dropped and replaced by a social influence construct that includes the notion of support (Venkatesh et al. 2003).
It is important to distinguish support as a form of social influence from support as a facilitating condition. The latter refers to objective factors in the environment that make an act easy to do, such as the provision of computer training and technical support in the context of technology acceptance (Thompson et al. 1991).
Technology adoption scholars speak of “perceived” critical mass since it is difficult to determine the actual critical mass threshold for a specific technology, but individuals may have a subjective perception thereof (Cho 2011).
Cho (2011) provides a good example for how to do this based on subjective norm and perceived critical mass.
The sample of studies at the societal level is limited as cultural values and dimensions (e.g., Hofstede 1983) are not considered a social influence construct. For a review of culture in information systems research please refer to Leidner and Kayworth (2006).
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate papers included in the literature review
*Aboelmaged MG (2010) Predicting e-procurement adoption in a developing country: an empirical integration of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behaviour. Ind Manag Data Syst 110(3):392–414
Adler PS, Kwon S (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manag Rev 27(1):17–40
*Agarwal R, Animesh A, Prasad K (2009) Social interactions and the ‘digital divide’: explaining variations in internet use. Inf Syst Res 20(2):277–294
AIS (2011) Senior scholars’ basket of journals. http://aisnet.org/?SeniorScholarBasket. Accessed 5 June 2016
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211
*Akar E, Mardikyan S (2014) Analyzing factors affecting users’ behavior intention to use social media: twitter case. Int J Bus Soc Sci 5(11):85–95
Akerlof GA, Kranton RE (2000) Economics and identity. Q J Econ 115(3):715–753
Alberghini E, Cricelli L, Grimaldi M (2010) Implementing knowledge management through IT opportunities: definition of a theoretical model based on tools and processes classification. In: Proceedings of the European conference on intellectual capital, pp 21–33
*Al-Gahtani SS (2004) Computer technology acceptance success factors in Saudi Arabia: an exploratory study. J Glob Inf Technol Manag 7(1):5–29
Algesheimer R, Dholakia UM, Herrmann A (2005) The social influence of brand community: evidence from European car clubs. J Mark 69(3):19–34
*Al-Qeisi K, Dennis C, Hegazy A, Abbad M (2015) How viable is the UTAUT model in a non-western context? Int Bus Res 8(2):204–219
Asch SE (1953) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Cartwright D, Zander A (eds) Group dynamics: research and Theory. Harper and Row, New York, pp 222–236
Bagozzi RP (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):244–254
*Bagozzi RP, Dholakia UM (2002) Intentional social action in virtual communities. J Interact Mark 16(2):2–21
*Bagozzi RP, Dholakia UM (2006) Open source software user communities: a study of participation in Linux user groups. Manag Sci 52(7):1099–1115
Bagozzi RP, Lee K (2002) Multiple routes for social influence: the role of compliance, internalization, and social identity. Soc Psychol Q 65(3):226–247
Baker WE (1990) Market networks and corporate behavior. Am J Sociol 96(3):589–625
*Baron S, Patterson A, Harris K (2006) Beyond technology acceptance: Understanding consumer practice. Int J Serv Ind Manag 17(2):111–135
Bélanger F, Carter L (2012) Digitizing government interactions with constituents: an historical review of e-government research in information systems. J Assoc Inf Syst 13(5):363–394
Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. J Manag 29(6):991–1013
Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (ed) Handbook of theory of Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenword Press, Westport, pp 242–258
*Brown SA, Dennis AR, Venkatesh V (2010) Predicting collaboration technology use: integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. J Manag Inf Syst 27(2):9–53
*Bruque S, Moyano J, Eisenberg J (2009) Individual adaptation to IT-induced change: the role of social networks. J Manag Inf Syst 25(3):177–206
Burnkrant RE, Cousineau A (1975) Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. J Consum Res 2(3):206–215
Burton-Jones A, Gallivan MJ (2007) Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS Q 31(4):657–679
Burton-Jones A, Straub DW (2006) Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach and empirical test. Inf Syst Res 17(3):228–246
*Chan F, Thong J, Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Hu PJH, Tam K-Y (2010) Modeling citizen satisfaction with mandatory adoption of an e-government technology. J Assoc Inf Syst 11(10):519–549
*Chan S-C, Lu M-T (2004) Understanding internet banking adoption and use behavior: a Hong Kong perspective. J Glob Inf Manag 12(3):21–43
*Chatterjee S, Sarker S, Valacich JS (2015) The behavioral roots of information systems security: exploring key factors related to unethical IT use. J Manag Inf Syst 31(4):49–87
*Chau PYK, Hu PJ-H (2001) Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decis Sci 32(4):699–719
*Chau PYK, Hu PJ-H (2002) Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Inf Manag Amst 39(4):297–311
*Chen S-C, Chen H-H, Chen M-F (2009) Determinants of satisfaction and continuance intention towards self-service technologies. Ind Manag Data Syst 109(9):1248–1263
*Cheng YM (2011) Antecedents and consequences of e-learning acceptance. Inf Syst J 21(3):269–299
*Cheung W, Chang MK, Lai VS (2000) Prediction of internet and world wide web usage at work: a test of an extended Triandis model. Decis Support Syst 30(1):83–100
*Chiu C-M, Hsu M-H, Wang ETG (2006) Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis Support Syst 42(3):1872–1888
Cho H (2011) Theoretical intersections among social influences, beliefs, and intentions in the context of 3G mobile services in Singapore: decomposing perceived critical mass and subjective norms. J Commun 61(2):283–306
*Choi J, Geistfeld LV (2004) A cross-cultural investigation of consumer e-shopping adoption. J of Econ Psychol 25(6):821–838
Chow WS, Chan LS (2008) Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Inf Manag Amst 45(7):458–465
Chui M, Manyika J, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Roxburgh C, Sarrazin H, Sands G, Westergren M (2012) The social economy: unlocking value and productivity through social technologies. McKinsey Global Institute, New York
Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol 55:591–621
Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(6):1015–1026
Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance. In: Gilbert D, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology, vol 2, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 151–192
Coleman JS (1990) Foundation of social theory. The Belknap Press, Cambridge
Conner M, Armitage CJ (1998) Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for further research. J Appl Soc Psychol 28:1429–1464
*Datta P (2011) A preliminary study of ecommerce adoption in developing countries. Inf Syst J 21(1):3–32
Delone WH, McLean E (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 3(1):60–95
Delone WH, McLean E (2003) The Delone and McLean model of information system success: a ten year update. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):9–30
Deutsch M, Gerard HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 51(3):629–636
*Devaraj S, Easley RF, Crant JM (2008) How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Inf Syst Res 19(1):93–105
*Dholakia UM, Bagozzi RP, Pearo LK (2004) A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. Int J Res Mark 21(3):241–263
*Dickinger A, Arami M, Meyer D (2008) The role of perceived enjoyment and social norm in the adoption of technology with network externalities. Eur J Inf Syst 17(1):4–11
*Dinev T, Hu Q (2007) The centrality of awareness in the formation of user behavioral intention toward protective information technologies. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(7):386–408
*Elie-Dit-Cosaque C, Pallud J, Kalika M (2012) The influence of individual, contextual, and social factors on perceived behavioral control of information technology: a field theory approach. J Manag Inf Syst 28(3):201–234
*Faullant R, Fuller J, Matzler K (2012) Mobile audience interaction—explaining the adoption of new mobile service applications in socially enriched environments. Eng Manag Res 1(1):59–76
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
*Foon YS, Fah BCY (2011) Internet banking adoption in Kuala Lumpur: an application of UTAUT model. Int J Bus Manag 6(4):161–167
French JRP, Raven B (1959) The bases of social power. In: Cartwright D (ed) Studies in social power. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, pp 150–167
Friedkin NE (2004) Social cohesion. Annu Rev Sociol 30:409–425
Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (1999) Social influence networks and opinion change. Adv Group Process 16(1):1–29
Fulk J (1993) Social construction of communication technology. Acad Manag J 36(5):921–950
Fulk J, Schmitz J, Steinfield C (1990) A social influence model of technology use. In: Fulk J, Steinfield CW (eds) Organizations and communication technology. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 117–142
*Fusilier M, Durlabhij S (2005) An exploration of student internet use in India: the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behaviour. Campus-Wide Inf Syst 22(4):233–246
*Gallivan MJ, Spitler VK, Koufaris M (2005) Does information technology training really matter? A social information processing analysis of coworkers’ inflnence on IT usage in the workplace. J Manag Inf Syst 22(1):152–192
*Gao L, Bai X (2014) A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of internet of things technology. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 26(2):211–231
*Gounaris S, Koritos C (2008) Investigating the drivers of internet banking adoption decision. Int J Bank Mark 26(5):282–304
Goyal S (2007) Connections: an introduction to the economics of networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380
*Gupta B, Dasgupta S, Gupta A (2008) Adoption of ICT in a government organization in a developing country: an empirical study. J Strateg Inf Syst 17(2):140–154
*Guzzo T, Ferri F, Grifoni P (2014) ECA: an e-commerce consumer acceptance model. Int Bus Res 8(1):145–155
Hofstede GH (1983) The dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In: Deregowski JB, Daiurawiec S, Annis RC (eds) Explications in cross-cultural psychology. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse
Hofstede GH (2015) The Hofstede Centre. http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html. Accessed 20 June 2015
*Hong S-J, Kar YT (2006) Understanding the adoption of multipurpose information appliances: the case of mobile data services. Inf Syst Res 17(2):162–179
*Hong S-J, Thong J, Moon J-Y, Tam K-Y (2008) Understanding the behavior of mobile data services consumers. Inf Syst Front 10(4):431–445
*Hsieh JJP-A, Rai A, Keil M (2008) Understanding digital inequality: comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Q 32(1):97–126
*Hsieh JJP-A, Rai A, Keil M (2011) Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Inf Syst Res 22(2):233–253
*Hsu CL, Lu HP (2004) Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Inf Manag Amst 41(7):853–868
*Ilie V, Van Slyke C, Green G, Lou H (2005) Gender differences in perceptions and use of communication technologies. Inf Res Manag J 18(3):13–31
Inkpen AC, Tsang EWK (2005) Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad Manag Rev 30(1):146–165
*Irani Z, Dwivedi YK, Williams MD (2009) Understanding consumer adoption of broadband: an extension of the technology acceptance model. J Oper Res Soc 60:1322–1334
*Jaradat M-IRM, Al Rababaa MS (2013) Assessing key factor that influence on the acceptance of mobile commerce based on modified UTAUT. Int J Bus Manag 8(23):102–112
*Johnston AC, Warkentin M (2010) Fear appeals and information security behaviors: an empirical study. MIS Q 34(3):549–566
*Junglas I, Goel L, Abraham C, Ives B (2013) The social component of information systems: How sociability contributes to technology acceptance. J Assoc Inf Syst 14(10):585–616
Karahanna E, Limayem M (2000) E-mail and v-mail usage: generalizing across technologies. J Organ Comput Electron Commer 10(1):49–66
Karahanna E, Straub DW, Chervany NL (1999) Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q 23(2):183–213
Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am Econ Rev 75(3):424–440
Kelman HC (1958) Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. J Confl Resolut 2(1):51–60
*Khalifa M, Shen KN (2008) Explaining the adoption of transactional B2C mobile commerce. J Enterp Inf Manag 21(2):110–124
*Kim C, Jahng J, Lee J (2007) An empirical investigation into the utilization-based information technology success model: integrating task-performance and social influence perspective. J Inf Technol 22(2):152–160
King WR, He J (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag Amst 43(6):740–755
*Kleijnen M, Wetzels M, De Ruyter K (2004) Consumer acceptance of wireless finance. J Financ Serv Mark 8(3):206–217
Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ (1994) Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Acad Manag Rev 19(2):195–229
Kraut RE, Rice RE, Cool C, Fish RS (1998) Varieties of social influence: the role of utility and norms in the success of a new communication medium. Organ Sci 9(4):437–453
*Kvasny L, Keil M (2006) The challenges of redressing the divide: a tale of two US cities. Inf Syst J 16(1):23–53
*Lau A, Yen J, Chau PYK (2001) Adoption of on-line trading in the Hong Kong financial market. J Electron Commer Res 2(2):58–65
*Lee BC, Cho J, Hwang D (2013) An integration of social capital and tourism technology adoption: a case of convention and visitors bureaus. Tour Hosp Res 13(3):149–165
*Lee M (2009) Understanding the behavioural intention to play online games: an extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Online Inf Rev 33(5):849–872
*Lee Y-C (2006) An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Inf Rev 30(5):517–541
Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag Amst 40(3):191–204
Leidner DE, Kayworth T (2006) A review of culture in information systems research: toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Q 30(2):357–399
*Lewis W, Agarwal R, Sambamurthy V (2003) Source of influence on beliefs about information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Q 27(4):657–678
*Li D, Chau PYK, Lou H (2005) Understanding individual adoption of instant messaging: an empirical investigation. J Assoc Inf Syst 6(4):102–129
Li SS, Karahanna E (2015) Online recommendation systems in a B2C e-commerce context: a review and future directions. J Assoc Inf Syst 16(2):72–107
*Li X, Hess TJ, Valacich JS (2008) Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems. J Strateg Inf Syst 17(1):39–71
*Liang H, Wei KK, Xue Y (2010) Understanding the influence of team climate on IT use. J Assoc Inf Syst 11(8):414–432
*Liao S, Chou E-Y (2012) Intention to adopt knowledge through virtual communities: posters vs lurkers. Online Inf Rev 36(3):442–461
Lin N (2001) Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
*Lou H, Luo W, Strong DM (2000) Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance. Eur J Inf Syst 9(2):91–103
*Lu HP, Hsiao K-L (2007) Understanding intention to continuously share information on weblogs. Internet Res 17(4):345–361
*Lu J, Liu C, Yu C-S, Yao JE (2003) Exploring factors associated with wireless internet via mobile technology acceptance in Mainland China. Commun Int Inf Manag Assoc 3(1):101–120
*Lu J, Yu C-S, Liu C, Yao JE (2003) Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Res 13(3):206–222
*Lu J, Yao JE, Yu C-S (2005) Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology. J Strateg Inf Syst 14(3):245–268
*Macredie RD, Mijinyawa K (2011) A theory-grounded framework of Open Source Software adoption in SMEs. Eur J Inf Syst 20(2):237–250
*Magni M, Angst CM, Agarwal R (2013) Everybody needs somebody: the influence of team network structure on information technology use. J Manag Inf Syst 29(3):9–42
Malhotra Y, Galletta D (2005) A multidimensional commitment model of volitional systems adoption and usage behavior. J Manag Inf Syst 22(1):117–151
*Mardikyan S, Beşiroğlu B, Uzmaya G (2012) Behavioral intention towards the use of 3G technology. Commun IBIMA 2012:1–10
Markus ML (1990) Toward a critical mass theory of interactive media. In: Fulk J, Steinfield C (eds) Organizations and communication technology. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 194–218
Markus ML, Robey D (1988) Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Manag Sci 34:583–598
Mason WA, Conrey FR, Smith ER (2007) Situating social influence processes: dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 11(3):279–300
Mathieson K (1991) Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf Syst Res 2(3):173–191
*McCoy S, Everard A, Jones B (2005) An examination of the technology acceptance model in Uruguay and the US: a focus on culture. J Glob Inf Technol Manag 8(2):27–45
McCoy S, Galletta D, King WR (2007) Applying TAM across cultures: the need for caution. Eur J Inf Syst 16(1):81–90
Merton RK, Sztompka P (1996) On social structure and science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
*Montazemi AR, Siam JJ, Esfahanipour A (2008) Effect of network relations on the adoption of electronic trading systems. J Manag Inf Syst 25(1):233–266
Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2(3):192–222
*Morris MG, Venkatesh V (2000) Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing work force. Pers Psychol 53(2):375–403
Morris MW, Hong Y, Chiu C, Liu Z (2015) Normology: integrating insights about social norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 129:1–13
Moscovici S, Mugny G, Van Avermaet E (1985) Perspectives on minority influence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
*Mutlu S, Ergeneli A (2012) Electronic mail acceptance evaluation by extended technology acceptance model and moderation effects of espoused national cultural values between subjective norm and usage intention. Intellect Econ 6(2):7–28
Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23(2):242–266
*Neufeld DJ, Dong L, Higgins C (2007) Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of information technology. Eur J Inf Syst 16(4):494–510
*Nysveen H, Pedersen PE, Thorbjørnsen H (2005a) Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: moderating effects of gender. J Consum Mark 22(5):247–256
*Nysveen H, Pedersen PE, Thorbjørnsen H (2005b) Intentions to use mobile services: antecedents and cross-service comparisons. J Acad Mark Sci 33(3):330–346
Oliveira T, Martins MF (2011) Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. Electron J Inf Syst Eval 14(1):110–121
Parsons T (1951) The social system. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Papadopoulos T, Stamati T, Nopparuch P (2013) Exploring the determinants of knowledge sharing via employee weblogs. Int J Inf Manag 33(1):133–146
*Pavlou PA, Fygenson M (2006) Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q 30(1):115–143
*Peng G, Dey D, Lahiri A (2014) Healthcare IT adoption: An analysis of knowledge transfer in socioeconomic networks. J Manag Inf Syst 31(3):7–34
Pinsonneault A, Barki H, Gallupe RB, Hoppen N (1999) Electronic brainstorming: the illusion of productivity. Inf Syst Res 10(2):110–133
Pillutla MM, Chen XP (1999) Social norms and cooperation in social dilemmas: the effects of context and feedback. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 78(2):81–103
*Plouffe CR, Vandenbosch M, Hulland J (2001) Intermediating technologies and multi-group adoption: a comparison of consumer and merchant adoption intentions toward a new electronic payment system. J Prod Innov Manag 18(2):65–81
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 Psychol 88(5):879–903
*Rauniar R, Rawski G, Yang J, Johnson B (2014) Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. J Enterp Inf Manag 27(1):6–30
Rice RE, Aydin CE (1991) Attitudes toward new organizational technology: network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Adm Sci Q 36(2):219–244
Rice RE, Grant AE, Schmitz J, Torobin J (1990) Individual and network influences on the adoption and perceived outcomes of electronic messaging. Soc Netw 12(1):27–55
*Riquelme HE, Rios RE (2010) The moderating effect of gender in the adoption of mobile banking. Int J Bank Mark 28(5):328–341
Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New York
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York
Sarker S, Ahuja M, Sarker S, Kirkeby S (2011) The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: a social network perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 28(1):273–310
*Sarker S, Valacich JS (2010) An alternative to methodological individualism: a non-reductionist approach to studying technology adoption in groups. MIS Q 34(4):779–808
*Sarker S, Valacich JS, Sarker S (2005) Technology adoption by groups: a valence perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 6(2):37–71
Schau HJ, Gilly MC (2003) We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. J Consum Res 30(3):385–404
Schepers J, Wetzels M (2007) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Inf Manag 44:90–103
Scott S, Orlikowski WJ (2014) Entanglements in practice: performing anonymity through social media. MIS Q 38(3):873–893
Scott WR (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Adm Sci Q 32(4):493–511
Seidler J (1974) On using informants: a technique for collecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error in organization analysis. Am Sociol Rev 39(6):816–831
*Shen J (2012) Social comparison, social presence, and enjoyment in the acceptance of social shopping websites. J Electr Commer Res 13(3):198–212
*Shen XL, Cheung CMK, Lee MKO (2013) Perceived critical mass and collective intention in social media-supported small group communication. Int J Inf Manag 33(5):707–715
*Shen XL, Lee MKO, Cheung CMK, Chen H (2010) Gender differences in intentional social action: we-intention to engage in social network-facilitated team collaboration. J Inf Technol 25(2):152–169
Shibutani T (1955) Reference groups as perspectives. Am J Sociol 60(6):562–569
*Sledgianowski D, Kulviwat S (2009) Using social network sites: the effects of playfulness, critical mass and trust in a hedonic context. J Comput Inf Syst 49(4):74–83
*Son J, Sadachar A, Manchiraju S, Fiore AM, Niehm LS (2012) Consumer adoption of online collaborative customer co-design. J Res Interact Mark 6(3):180–197
Sproull L, Faraj S (1997) Atheism, sex, and databases: the net as a social technology. In: Kiesler S (ed) Culture of the Internet. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 35–51
*Srite M, Karahanna E (2006) The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Q 30(3):679–704
*Strader TJ, Ramaswami SN, Houle PA (2007) Perceived network externalities and communication technology acceptance. Eur J Inf Syst 16(1):54–65
Straub DW, Loch K, Evaristo R, Karahanna E, Srite M (2002) Toward a theory-based measurement of culture. Hum Factors Inf Syst 10(1):61–65
*Sun Y, Wang N, Guo X, Peng Z (2013) Understanding the acceptance of mobile health services: a comparison and integration of alternative models. Electron Commer Res 14(2):183–200
*Sykes TA, Venkatesh V, Gosain S (2009) Model of acceptance with peer support: a social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS Q 33(2):371–393
Tajfel HE (1978) Differentiation between social groups: studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press, London
Tan C-H, Sutanto J, Phang CW, Gasimov A (2014) Using personal communication technologies for commercial communications: a cross-country investigation of email and SMS. Inf Syst Res 25(2):307–327
*Thakur R, Srivastava M (2013) Customer usage intention of mobile commerce in India: an empirical study. J Indian Bus Res 5(1):52–72
Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM (1991) Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q 15(1):124–143
*Titah R, Barki H (2009) Nonlinearities between attitude and subjective norms in information technology acceptance: a negative synergy? MIS Q 33(4):827–844
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222
Triandis HC (1980) Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In: Howe HE (ed) Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 195–259
*Tsai H-T, Bagozzi RP (2014) Contribution behavior in virtual communities: cognitive, emotional, and social Influences. MIS Q 38(1):143–163
Turner JC (1991) Social influence. Mapping social psychology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes
Turner M, Kitchenham B, Brereton P, Charters S, Budgen D (2010) Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 52(5):463–479
Van Raaij EM, Schepers J (2008) The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Comput Educ 50(3):838–852
*Van Slyke C, Ilie V, Lou H, Stafford T (2007) Perceived critical mass and the adoption of a communication technology. Eur J Inf Syst 16(3):270–283
*Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Ackerman PL (2000) A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making process. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 83(1):33–60
*Venkatesh V, Brown SA (2001) A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Q 25(1):71–102
Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H (2013) Briding the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q 37(1):1–34
*Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204
*Venkatesh V, Morris MG (2000) Why don’t men ever stop to ask for direction? Gender, social influence and their role in technology acceptance and usage behaviour. MIS Q 24(1):115–137
*Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478
*Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Sykes TA, Ackerman PL (2004) Individual reactions to new technologies in the workplace: the role of gender as a psychological construct. J Appl Soc Psychol 34(3):445–467
*Venkatesh V, Sykes TA (2013) Digital divide initiative success in developing countries: a longitudinal field study in a village in India. Inf Syst Res 24(2):1–22
*Venkatesh V, Zhang X (2010) Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: US vs. China. J Glob Inf Technol Manag 13(1):5–27
*Venkatesh V, Zhang X, Sykes TA (2011) ‘Doctors do too little technology’: a longitudinal field study of an electronic healthcare system implementation. Inf Syst Res 22(3):523–546
Wand Y, Weber R (1995) On the deep structure of information systems. Inf Syst J 5(3):203–223
*Wang E, Chou NP-Y (2014) Consumer characteristics, social influence, and system factors on online group-buying repurchasing intention. Electron Commer Res 15(2):119–132
*Wang Y, Meister DB, Gray P (2013) Social influence and knowledge management systems use: evidence from panel data. MIS Q 37(1):299–313
*Wasko MM, Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q 29(1):35–57
Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. University Press, Cambridge
*Wattal S, Racherla P, Mandviwalla M (2010) Network externalities and technology use: a quantitative analysis of intraorganizational blogs. J Manag Inf Syst 27(1):145–174
Webster J, Watson R (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a review. MIS Q 26(2):xiii–xxiii
*White Baker E, Al-Gahtani SS, Hubona GS (2007) The effects of gender and age on new technology implementation in a developing country: testing the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Inf Technol People 20(4):352–375
*Williams MD, Slade EL, Dwivedi YK (2014) Consumers’ intentions to use e-readers. J Comput Inf Syst 54(2):66–77
Wilska T-A (2003) Mobile phone use as part of young people’s consumption styles. J Consum Policy 26(4):441–463
*Wu IL, Chen J-L (2005) An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: an empirical study. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 62(6):784–808
*Yang H (2013) Bon appétit for apps: young American consumers’ acceptance of mobile applications. J Comput Inf Syst 53(3):85–95
*Yang H, Liu H, Zhou L (2012) Predicting young Chinese consumers’ mobile viral attitudes, intents and behavior. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 24(1):59–77
*Yang K, Forney JC (2013) The moderating role of consumer technology anxiety in mobile shopping adoption: differential effects of facilitating conditions and social influences. Electron Commer Res 14:334–347
Yoo Y, Alavi M (2001) Media and group cohesion: relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Q 25(3):371–390
*Yu C-S (2012) Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: Empirical evidence from the UTAUT model. Electron Commer Res 13:104–121
*Zhang X, Prybutok VR, Koh CE (2006) The role of impulsiveness in a TAM-based online purchasing behavior. Info Res Manag J 19(2):54–68
Zimbardo PG (1970) The human choice: individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In: Arnold WJ, Levine D (eds) Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 237–307
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Hendrike Werwigk for editorial support. We further acknowledge helpful comments from participants of the 25\({\mathrm{th}}\) European Conference on Information Systems.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Graf-Vlachy, L., Buhtz, K. & König, A. Social influence in technology adoption: taking stock and moving forward. Manag Rev Q 68, 37–76 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0133-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0133-3