Measuring Consumer Perceived Warm-Glow for Technology Adoption Modeling
Pages 95 - 102
Abstract
In this paper, we adapt and validate two constructs—perceived extrinsic warm-glow (PEWG) and perceived intrinsic warm-glow (PIWG) —to measure the two dimensions of consumer perceived warm-glow (i.e., extrinsic and intrinsic) for use with the practice of technology adoption modeling. Taking an experimental approach, participants were exposed to one of four vignettes designed to simulate either the absence or the presence of warm-glow (specifically, extrinsic warm-glow, intrinsic warm-glow, and concurrently extrinsic and intrinsic warm-glow). The results revealed that both constructs measured their respective forms of warm-glow with two caveats. Firstly, singularly trying to evoke extrinsic warm-glow led to only a slight increase in consumer perception of extrinsic warm-glow. We attributed this finding to individuals not being attracted to technology products that overtly target and seek to satisfy their vanity, instead preferring technology that does so in a more subtle way. The second is that singularly trying to evoke intrinsic warm-glow also resulted in the manifestation of extrinsic warm-glow. Thus, warm-glow appears as a blend of extrinsic and intrinsic dimensions. This finding serves to reinforce what has already been reported in existing literature regarding warm-glow and the idea of impure altruism.
References
[1]
Izak Benbasat and Henri Barki. 2007. Quo vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8, 4 (2007), 211–218.
[2]
Fred Davis. 1985. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved September 8, 2019 from https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192
[3]
Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319–340.
[4]
Viswanath Venkatesh and Fred D. Davis. 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46, 2 (February 2000), 186–204.
[5]
Viswanath Venkatesh and Hillol Bala. 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 39, 2 (2008), 273–315.
[6]
Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27, 3 (2003), 425–478.
[7]
Viswanath Venkatesh, James Thong, and Xin Xu. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly 36, 1 (February 2012), 157–178.
[8]
Yousafzai Y. Shumaila, Foxall R. Gordon, and Pallister G. John. 2007. Technology acceptance: A meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management 2, 3 (January 2007), 251–280.
[9]
Yousafzai Y. Shumaila, Foxall R. Gordon, and Pallister G. John. 2007. Technology acceptance: A meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 2. Journal of Modelling in Management 2, 3 (January 2007), 281–304.
[10]
Yogesh K Dwivedi, Nripendra P Rana, Kuttimani Tamilmani, and Ramakrishnan Raman. 2020. A meta-analysis based modified unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (meta-UTAUT): A review of emerging literature. Current Opinion in Psychology 36, (December 2020), 13–18.
[11]
James Andreoni. 1989. Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian Equivalence. Journal of Political Economy 97, 6 (December 1989), 1447–1458.
[12]
Kota Saito. 2015. Impure altruism and impure selfishness. Journal of Economic Theory 158, (July 2015), 336–370.
[13]
Ahmad Shakeri and Howsikan Kugathasan. 2020. Defining donation. Hektoen International: A Journal of Medical Humanities, (2020). Retrieved March 17, 2020 from https://hekint.org/2020/01/30/defining-donation/
[14]
Jeroen Van de Ven. 2000. The economics of the gift. SSRN.
[15]
Heesup Han, JungHoon (Jay) Lee, and Jinsoo Hwang. 2016. A study of brand prestige in the casino industry: The moderating role of customer involvement. Tourism and Hospitality Research 18, 1 (January 2016), 96–106.
[16]
Sarah S. Müller, Anne J. Fries, and Karen Gedenk. 2014. How much to give? — The effect of donation size on tactical and strategic success in cause-related marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 31, 2 (June 2014), 178–191.
[17]
Guido Ongena, Lidwien van de Wijngaert, and Erik Huizer. 2013. Exploring determinants of early user acceptance for an audio-visual heritage archive service using the vignette method. Behaviour & Information Technology 32, 12 (December 2013), 1216–1224.
[18]
James Abbey and Margaret Meloy. 2017. Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management 53–56, (November 2017), 63–70.
[19]
Antonios Saravanos, Stavros Zervoudakis, Dongnanzi Zheng, Neil Stott, Bohdan Hawryluk, and Donatella Delfino. 2021. The hidden cost of using Amazon Mechanical Turk for research. In HCI International 2021 - Late Breaking Papers: Design and User Experience, Constantine Stephanidis, Marcelo M. Soares, Elizabeth Rosenzweig, Aaron Marcus, Sakae Yamamoto, Hirohiko Mori, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, Gabriele Meiselwitz, Xiaowen Fang and Abbas Moallem (eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13094. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 147–164.
[20]
Krista Casler, Lydia Bickel, and Elizabeth Hackett. 2013. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 6 (2013), 2156–2160.
[21]
Scott B. MacKenzie, Philip M. Podsakoff, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2011. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly 35, 2 (2011), 293–334.
[22]
Islam Najmul and Azad Nasreen. 2015. Satisfaction and continuance with a learning management system: Comparing perceptions of educators and students. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology 32, 2 (January 2015), 109–123.
[23]
Claes Fornell and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 1 (1981), 39–50.
[24]
Wynne W. Chin. 1998. Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22, 1 (1998), vii–xvi.
[25]
Gail M. Sullivan and Anthony R. Artino Jr. 2013. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 5, 4 (December 2013), 541–542.
[26]
Geoff Norman. 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15, 5 (December 2010), 625–632.
[27]
James W. Drisko and Melissa D. Grady. 2019. Step 3 of EBP: part 2—Evaluating research methods. In Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Social Work, James W. Drisko and Melissa D. Grady (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, CH, 123–154.
[28]
David B. Rosengren, Bryan Hartzler, John S. Baer, Elizabeth A. Wells, and Christopher W. Dunn. 2008. The video assessment of simulated encounters-revised (VASE-R): Reliability and validity of a revised measure of motivational interviewing skills. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 97, 1 (September 2008), 130–138.
[29]
W. W. Chin. 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research, G. A. Marcoulides (ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, 295–336.
[30]
B.G. Tabachnick and L.S. Fidell. 2019. Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson, Boston, MA.
[31]
Mei-Chi Tseng, Po-Chuan Chi, Chien-Chun Wu, and Jui-Yi Hsu. 2020. Application of Internet of Things technology in the man-made slopes monitoring in Taipei City. In Geotechnics for Sustainable Infrastructure Development, P. Duc Long and N. Dung (eds.). Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 62. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 1203–1207.
[32]
Yahua Qiao. 1999. Interstate Fiscal Disparities in America: A Study of Trends and Causes. Routledge, New York, NY.
[33]
Lawrence DeCarlo. 1997. Univariate and Multivariate Tests of Skew and Kurtosis. Retrieved April 3, 2020 from http://www.columbia.edu/∼ld208/normtest.sps
[34]
Frank Konietschke, Arne C. Bathke, Solomon W. Harrar, and Markus Pauly. 2015. Parametric and nonparametric bootstrap methods for general MANOVA. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 140, (September 2015), 291–301.
[35]
A. C. Davison and D. V. Hinkley. 2013. Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[36]
Holmes Finch. 2005. Comparison of the performance of nonparametric and parametric MANOVA test statistics when assumptions are violated. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 1, 1 (2005), 27–38.
[37]
María José Blanca Mena, Rafael Alarcón Postigo, Jaume Arnau Gras, Roser Bono Cabré, and Rebecca Bendayan. 2017. Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema 29, 4 (November 2017), 552-557.
[38]
María J. Blanca, Rafael Alarcón, Jaume Arnau, Roser Bono, and Rebecca Bendayan. 2018. Effect of variance ratio on ANOVA robustness: Might 1.5 be the limit? Behavior Research Methods 50, 3 (June 2018), 937–962.
[39]
Joo Young Hong, Bhan Lam, Zhen-Ting Ong, Kenneth Ooi, Woon-Seng Gan, Jian Kang, Jing Feng, and Sze-Tiong Tan. 2019. Quality assessment of acoustic environment reproduction methods for cinematic virtual reality in soundscape applications. Building and Environment 149, (February 2019), 1–14.
[40]
Emanuel Schmider, Matthias Ziegler, Erik Danay, Luzi Beyer, and Markus Bühner. 2010. Is it really robust? Methodology 6, 4 (January 2010), 147–151.
[41]
Richard Armstrong. 2014. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 34, 5 (September 2014), 502–508.
[42]
Warm glow giving. The Decision Lab. Retrieved February 8, 2022 from https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/warm-glow-giving/
[43]
Karen Winterich. 2018. Not everyone wants their donations touted on Facebook or plastered on walls. The Conversation. Retrieved April 5, 2020 from http://theconversation.com/not-everyone-wants-their-donations-touted-on-facebook-or-plastered-on-walls-106752
[44]
Özgür Evren and Stefania Minardi. 2017. Warm‐glow giving and freedom to be selfish. The Economic Journal 127, 603 (August 2017), 1381–1409.
[45]
James Andreoni. 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal 100, 401 (1990), 464–477.
[46]
Jennifer Aaker, Kathleen Vohs, and Cassie Mogilner. 2010. Nonprofits are seen as warm and for‐profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research 37, 2 (August 2010), 224–237.
[47]
Kevin Jones. 2009. Figuring out what counts. Stanford Social Innovation Review (2009). Retrieved October 14, 2019 from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/figuring_out_what_counts
[48]
Sarah Iweala, Achim Spiller, and Stephan Meyerding. 2019. Buy good, feel good? The influence of the warm glow of giving on the evaluation of food items with ethical claims in the U.K. and Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production 215, (April 2019), 315–328.
Index Terms
- Measuring Consumer Perceived Warm-Glow for Technology Adoption Modeling
Recommendations
Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students' Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios
Engagement with e-portfolios has been shown to improve students' learning. However, what influences students to accept e-portfolios is a question that needs careful study. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of Self-Efficacy, ...
Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
This paper extends the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) to study acceptance and use of technology in a consumer context. Our proposed UTAUT2 incorporates three constructs into UTAUT: hedonic motivation, price value, and habit. ...
Modelling blockchain technology adoption in the supply chain: evidence from an emerging country
The study aims to investigate the factors influencing the supply chain professionals' intention to use blockchain technology, using the technology readiness index (TRI) and technology acceptance model (TAM) and considering several important variables. ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2022
125 pages
ISBN:9781450396660
DOI:10.1145/3545922
Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 17 September 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ICSLT '22
ICSLT '22: 2022 8th International Conference on e-Society, e-Learning and e-Technologies
June 10 - 12, 2022
Rome, Italy
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 340Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)185
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)29
Reflects downloads up to 30 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in