Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resistance to technological innovations: An examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technological innovation is seen as the key to survival and success for many firms. Whether intended for internal use or for customers, adoption decisions must consider the response of the final user to such technological alternatives. This paper argues for greater attention to the factors which cause individual resistance to technological innovations. The results of two studies are reported which examined the effects of self-efficacy (Bandura 1977) and performance satisfaction on consumers’ response to technological changes. Results indicate that a person’s perceived ability to use a product successfully affects their evaluative and behavioral response to the product. In addition, the level of satisfaction experienced with an existing behavior increases resistance to and reduces likelihood of adopting an alternative.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, Icek. 1985. “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior.” InAction Control: From Cognition to Behavior, pp. 11–39. Eds. Julius Kuhl and Jurgen Beckman. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein. 1980.Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, Albert. 1986. “The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy Theory,”Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4 (3): 249–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1977. “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.”Psychological Review 84: 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beals, Ralph L. 1968. “Resistance and Adaptation to Technological Change: Some Anthropological Views.”Human Factors 10 (6): 579–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackler, Frank and Colin Brown. 1985. “Evaluation and the Impact of Information Technologies on People in Organizations.”Human Relations 38 (3): 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brod, Craig. 1982. “Managing Technostress: Optimizing the Use of Computer Technology.”Personnel Journal 61 (October): 753–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, Elizabeth and James H. Johnson. 1981. “Change Technology and the Implementation of Automation in Mental Health Care Settings.”Psychonomic Science 13 (4): 573–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, Roger J., C. A. diBenedetto, and Michael H. Morris. 1985. “Technological Innovation: An Emerging Paradigm.” InAMA Educators’ Proceedings 51: 324–329. Eds. R. F. Lusch, G. L. Ford, R. D. Howell, C. A. Ingene, M. Reilly and R. W. Stampfl. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, J. Merrill, Phoebe C. Ellsworth and Elliot Aronson. 1976.Methods of Research in Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervone, Daniel, and Philip K. Peake. 1986. “Anchoring, Efficacy, and Action: The Influence of Judgmental Heuristics on Self-Efficacy Judgments and Behavior.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (3): 492–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coch, Lester and John R. P. French, Jr. 1948. “Overcoming Resistance to Change.”Human Relations 1 (4): 512–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 1977.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danko, William O. and James M. MacLachlan. 1983. “Research to Accelerate the Diffusion of a New Invention.”Journal of Advertising Research 23 (June–July): 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models.”Management Science 35 (August): 982–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, Mary Dee and James W. Gentry. 1983. “Characteristics of Adopters and Non-Adopters of Home Computers.”Journal of Consumer Research 10 (September): 225–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frantzich, Stephen E. 1979. “Technological Innovation Among Congressmen.”Social Forces 57 (March): 968–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson. 1985. “A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (March): 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson. 1989. “Technology Diffusion: An Empirical Test of Competitive Effects.”Journal of Marketing 53 (January): 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, Bela. 1981. “Technological Diffusion in Industry: Research Needs and Shortcomings.”The Journal of Industrial Economics 29 (3): 247–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Jeffrey. 1988. “A Far-from-Equilibrium Systems Approach to Resistance to Change.”Organizational Dynamics 17 (2): 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Thomas, Nancy D. Smith, and Millard Mann. 1985a. “Communicating Innovations Convincing Computer Phobics to Adopt Innovative Techniques.” InAdvances in Consumer Research 13: 419–422. Ed. Richard Lutz. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Thomas, Nancy D. Smith, Millard Mann, and Bruce F. Roberson. 1985b. “Efficacy Expectations and Technology Adoption: The Case of Computers.” InProceedings of the Division of Consumer Psychology (Division 23), pp. 15–19. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Kenneth Johnson. 1990. “User Satisfaction with Computer-Mediated Communication Systems.”Management Science 36 (6): 739–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, Herbert C. and Donald P. Warwick. 1973. “Bridging Micro and Macro Approaches to Social Change: A Social Psychological Perspective.” InProcesses and Phenomena of Social Change, pp. 13–59. Ed. Gerald Zaltman. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, Irving. 1986. “Early Research on Self-Efficacy: What We Already Know Without Knowing We Knew.”Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology 4 (3): 319–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, and William A. Kraus. 1985. “Implementing New Technology.”Harvard Business Review 63 (November–December): 102–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, James E., and R. W. Rogers. 1983. “Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy: A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19: 469–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, James E., Larry W. Norton and Cal D. Stoltenberg. 1986. “Self-Efficacy Expectancy, Outcome Expectancy and Outcome Value: Relative Effects on Behavioral Intentions.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (4): 783–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. Lynne and Daniel Robey. 1983. “The Organizational Validity of Management Information Systems.”Human Relations 36 (3): 203–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgely, David F. and Grahame R. Dowling. 1978. “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement.”Journal of Consumer Research 4 (March): 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, Gene W. and Lori Franz. 1983. “Habit and Perceived Risk as Factors in the Resistance to Use of ATMs.”Journal of Retail Banking 5 (2): 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, David A. 1981. “Managing Organizational Change: An Integrative Perspective.”The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 17 (2): 191–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, Edward, Charles Parsons, Robert Liden and David Herold. 1990. “Implementing New Technology: Management Issues and Opportunities.”The Journal of High Technology Management Research 1 (1): 68–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perdue, Barbara and John O. Summers. 1986. “Checking the Success of Manipulations in Marketing Experiments.”Journal of Marketing Research 22 (November): 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Robert A., Gerald Albaum, and Richard F. Beltramini. 1985. “A Meta-Analysis of Effect Sizes in Consumer Behavior Experiments.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (June): 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raju, P. S. 1980. “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 7 (December): 272–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, S. 1987. “A Model of Innovation Resistance.”Advances in Consumer Research 14: 208–212. Eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1989. “Successful Innovation Using Strategies to Reduce Consumer Resistance: An Empirical Test.”Journal of Product Innovation Management 6: 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Everett M. 1983.Diffusion of Innovations. New York: McMillan Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salerno, Lynn M. 1985. “What Happened to the Computer Revolution?”Harvard Business Review (November–December): 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, Edgar H. 1985.Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, Leon F. 1983. “Influencing the ‘Shape’ of Resistance: An Experimental Exploration of Paradoxical Directives and Psychological Reactance.”Basic and Applied Social Psychology 4 (1): 47–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, Jagdish N. 1981. “Psychology of Innovation Resistance: The Less Developed Concept (LDC) in Diffusion Research.” InResearch in Marketing, pp. 273–282. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, Jagdish N. and Gary L. Frazier. 1982. “A Model of Strategy Mix for Planned Social Change.”Journal of Marketing 46 (Winter): 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Thayer C. 1987. “Computers in Sales and Marketing: S&MM’s Survey Results.”Sales and Marketing Management 138 (May): 52–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Thomas W. 1984. “Slow Down, Fit It Together... and Let People Catch Up.”United States Banker (December): 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Goodwin. 1971. “Resistance to Change.”American Behavioral Scientist 4 (May–June): 745–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, Gerald and Robert Duncan. 1977.Strategies for Planned Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, Gerald, R. Duncan, and J. Holbeck. 1973.Innovations and Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuboff, Shoshana. 1982. “New Worlds of Computer-Mediated Work.”Harvard Business Review 60 (September–October): 142–152.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia State University, Georgia, USA

    Pam Scholder Ellen

  2. University of South Carolina, South Carolina, USA

    William O. Bearden & Subhash Sharma

Authors
  1. Pam Scholder Ellen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William O. Bearden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Subhash Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ellen, P.S., Bearden, W.O. & Sharma, S. Resistance to technological innovations: An examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. JAMS 19, 297–307 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726504

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726504

Keywords

Search

Navigation