Advertisement

Information Technology & Tourism

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 21–47 | Cite as

Social actor attribution to mobile phones: the case of tourists

  • Iis P. TussyadiahEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

This study examines social actor attribution to mobile phones in general settings and travel context. Informed by attribution theory and computing technology continuum of perspective model, the hypothesized relationships between social characteristics of mobile phones, users’ core self-evaluation, and social actor attribution to mobile phones were tested to determine the locus of causality of people’s social responses to mobile technology. Further, the influence of mobile phones use for travel-related purposes was investigated to examine the situation attribution explaining the perceived social roles of mobile phones in travel. The results demonstrate that perceived positive and negative social characters of mobile phones as well as self-efficacy, locus of control and self-esteem of users significantly influence social actor attribution to mobile phones. In a travel setting, the significant influence of situational factor on the social roles of mobile technology emphasizes the importance of anthropomorphism in the designing of mobile technology for travel. As a managerial implication, features of mobile technology should suggest the roles of mobile devices as personal travel companions and/or assistants to increase the persuasive power of mobile phones for tourists.

Keywords

Mobile technology CASA Attribution theory Continuum of perspectives Persuasive technology Travel 

References

  1. Bagozzi RP, Yi T (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang C-H, Ferris DL, Johnson RE, Rosen CC, Tan Ja (2012) Core self-evaluations: a review and evaluation of the literature. J Manag 38(1):81–128Google Scholar
  3. Chin W (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA (ed) Modern methods for business research. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 295–336Google Scholar
  4. Costa PTJ, McCrae RR (1988) Personality in adult-hood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO personality inventory. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:853–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeCharms R (1968) Personal causation: the internal affective determinants of behavior. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dillon WR, Goldstein M (1984) Multivariate analysis, methods and applications. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards SJ, Blythe PT, Scott S, Weihong-Guo A (2006) Tourist information delivered through mobile devices: findings from the image project. Inform Technol Tour 8:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG (1968) Manual for the Eysenck personality inventory. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  10. Falaleeva N, Johnson R (2002) Influence of individual psychological traits on attribution toward computing technology. Eighth Am Conf Inform Syst 2002:1028–1033Google Scholar
  11. Fogg BJ (1998) Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Fogg BJ (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  13. Fogg BJ, Nass CI (1997) Silicon sycophants: the effect of computers that flatter. Int J Hum Comput Stud 46:551–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gretzel U (2011) Intelligent systems in tourism: a social science perspective. Annals Tour Res 38(3):757–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guthrie SE (1993) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall CM (2004) Tourism. Prentice-Hall, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall B, Henningsen DD (2008) Social facilitation and human–computer interaction. Comput Hum Behav 24(6):2965–2971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayes B, Hesketh B (1989) Attribution theory, judgmental biases, and cognitive behavior modification: prospects and problems. Cogn Therapy Res 13(3):211–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hung M-C, Chang I-C, Hwang H-G (2011) Exploring academic teachers’ continuance toward the web-based learning system: the role of causal attributions. Comput Educ 57(2):1530–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Igbaria M, Iivari J (1995) The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega 23(6):587–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson RD (2001) Tool or social actor: factors contributing to differential social attributions toward computing technology. University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson RD, Marakas GM, Palmer JW (2006) Differential social attributions toward computing technology: an empirical examination. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64:446–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson RD, Marakas GM, Palmer JW (2008) Beliefs about the social roles and capabilities of computing technology: development of the computing technology continuum of perspective. Behav Inform Technol 27(2):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Judge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC (1997) The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluations approach. Res Organ Behav 19:151–188Google Scholar
  28. Judge TA, Erez A, Bono JE, Thoresen CJ (2002) Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? J Pers Soc Psychol 83(3):693–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kabassi K (2010) Personalizing recommendations for tourists. Telematics Inform 27(1):51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kansas State University (2011, June 28). Attachment to cellphones more about entertainment, less about communication. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110628113139.htm
  31. Karsten R (2002) An analysis of IS professional end user causal attributions for user-system outcomes. J End User Comput 14(4):51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelley HH (1973) The processes of causal attribution. Am Psychol 28(2):107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim J, Tussyadiah IP (2013) Social networking and social support in tourism experience: the moderating role of online self-presentation strategies. J Travel Tour Market 30(1):78–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee E-U (2010) The more humanlike, the better? How speech type and users’ cognitive style affect social responses to computers. Comput Hum Behav 26:665–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levenson H (1973) Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. J Consult Clin Psychol 41(3):397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindstrom M (2011, September). You love your iPhone. Literally. The New York Times. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/you-love-your-iphone-literally.html
  37. Marakas GM, Yi MY, Johnson RD (1998) The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Inform Syst Res 9(2):126–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marakas GM, Johnson RD, Palmer JW (2000) A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: when metaphor become the model. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52:719–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin D, Alzua A, Lamsfus C (2011) A contextual geofencing mobile tourism service. In: Law R, Fuchs M, Ricci F (eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism 2011. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 191–202Google Scholar
  40. Martinko MJ (1995) The nature and function of attribution theory within the organizational science. In: Martinko MJ (ed) Attribution theory: an organizational perspective. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  41. Mumm J, Mutlu B (2011) Designing motivational agents: the role of praise, social comparison, and embodiment in computer feedback. Comput Hum Behav 27(5):1643–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2011). Mplus User’s Guide. 6th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  43. Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: The proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence. Boston, Massachusetts, pp 72–78Google Scholar
  45. Nass C, Moon Y, Fogg BJ, Reeves B, Dryer C (1995) Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int J Hum Comput Stud 43:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ormrod JE (2006) Educational psychology: developing learners, 5th edn. Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  47. Quan S, Wang N (2004) Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: an illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tour Manag 25:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rasinger J, Fuchs M, Höpken W (2007) Information search with mobile tourist guides: a survey of usage intention. Inform Technol Tour 9(3–4):177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  51. Rotter JB (1954) Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmeil A, Broll W (2007) An anthropomorphic AR-based personal information manager and guide. Proceedings of HCI international 2007, July 22–27, Beijing, PR ChinaGoogle Scholar
  53. Sproull L, Subramani M, Kiesler S, Walker JH (1996) When the interface is a face. Hum Comput Interact 11:97–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson ER (2008) Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers. Personality Individ Differ 45(6):542–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turkle S (1984) The second self. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Tussyadiah IP (2012) A concept of location-based social network marketing. J Travel Tour Market 29(3):205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tussyadiah IP, Fesenmaier DR (2009) Mediating tourists experiences-access to places via shared videos. Annals Tour Res 36(1), 24–40Google Scholar
  58. Tussyadiah IP, Zach FJ (2012) The role of geo-based technology in place experiences. Annals Tour Res 39(2):780–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang D, Fesenmaier DR (2013) Transforming the travel experience: the use of smartphones for travel. In: Cantoni L, Xiang Z (eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism 2013. Springer, Vienna/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang D, Xiang Z (2012) The new landscape of travel: a comprehensive analysis of Smartphone Apps. In: Fuchs M, Ricci F, Cantoni L (eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism 2012. Springer, Vienna/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang D, Park S, Fesenmaier DR (2011) The role of smartphones in mediating the touristic experience. J Travel Res 51(4):371–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weiner B (1985) An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychol Rev 92:548–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. You C-S, Hung Y-C, Tsen Y-J, Wang H-B (2013) The roles of causal attribution on the continued use of e-learning systems. Int J Appl Math Stat 38(8):28–42Google Scholar
  64. Zhu Z, Nakata C, Shivakumar K, Grewal D (2013) Fix it or leave it? Customer recovery from self-service technology failures. J Retail 89(1):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of BusinessWashington State University VancouverVancouverUSA

Personalised recommendations