IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v203y2024ics004016252400180x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why should innovators care about morality? Political ideology, moral foundations, and the acceptance of technological innovations

Author

Listed:
  • Claudy, Marius C.
  • Parkinson, Mary
  • Aquino, Karl

Abstract

Innovations have become an increasingly polarized issue between the political left and right. Recent debates around artificial intelligence, mRNA vaccines, and genetically modified (GM) foods, to name but a few, have shown that liberals and conservatives differ in their acceptance of innovation. One explanation for this divide is that liberals and conservatives rely on different moral foundations when judging new technologies. This study builds on moral foundations theory to explore how differences in political ideology determine moral judgements and subsequent acceptance of technological innovations. In Study 1 (N = 465) we utilize a mixed experimental design to show that liberals and conservatives vary in their acceptance of technological innovations, which can be explained by conservatives (vs liberals) being more concerned about binding (vs individualizing) moral foundations. In Study 2, we conduct a quantitative text analysis of liberal and conservative newspapers (N = 1045) to demonstrate that differences in moral judgements and acceptance between liberals and conservatives can also be observed in the public discourse. Study 3 (N = 699) utilizes a between-subjects design to evaluate how the reframing of technologies in line with moral foundations increases acceptance among liberals and conservatives. The research advances theory by highlighting the important role of moral foundations in technology acceptance at individual and group levels and offers important managerial and policy implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudy, Marius C. & Parkinson, Mary & Aquino, Karl, 2024. "Why should innovators care about morality? Political ideology, moral foundations, and the acceptance of technological innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:203:y:2024:i:c:s004016252400180x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004016252400180X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123384?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pascual Berrone & Andrea Fosfuri & Liliana Gelabert, 2017. "Does Greenwashing Pay Off? Understanding the Relationship Between Environmental Actions and Environmental Legitimacy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 363-379, August.
    2. Johan Jansson & Ellen Dorrepaal, 2015. "Personal Norms for Dealing with Climate Change: Results from a Survey Using Moral Foundations Theory," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 381-395, December.
    3. Armin Granulo & Christoph Fuchs & Stefano Puntoni, 2019. "Psychological reactions to human versus robotic job replacement," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 1062-1069, October.
    4. Gamber, Michael & Kruft, Tobias & Kock, Alexander, 2022. "Which effort pays off? Analyzing ideators' behavorial patterns on corporate ideation platforms," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 136217, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    5. Gilly, Mary C & Zeithaml, Valarie A, 1985. "The Elderly Consumer and Adoption of Technologies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(3), pages 353-347, December.
    6. Winterich, Karen Page & Zhang, Yinlong & Mittal, Vikas, 2012. "How political identity and charity positioning increase donations: Insights from Moral Foundations Theory," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 346-354.
    7. Richard Cowell & Gill Bristow & Max Munday, 2011. "Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 539-557.
    8. Blair Kidwell & Adam Farmer & David M. Hardesty, 2013. "Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(2), pages 350-367.
    9. Westaby, James D., 2005. "Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 97-120, November.
    10. Norval D. Glenn, 1974. "Aging and Conservatism," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 415(1), pages 176-186, September.
    11. Jake B. Telkamp & Marc H. Anderson, 2022. "The Implications of Diverse Human Moral Foundations for Assessing the Ethicality of Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(4), pages 961-976, July.
    12. Avnika B. Amin & Robert A. Bednarczyk & Cara E. Ray & Kala J. Melchiori & Jesse Graham & Jeffrey R. Huntsinger & Saad B. Omer, 2017. "Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 873-880, December.
    13. Kirsten Martin, 2019. "Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 835-850, December.
    14. Jung, Jihye & Mittal, Vikas, 2020. "Political Identity and the Consumer Journey: A Research Review," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 55-73.
    15. Østergaard, Christian R. & Timmermans, Bram & Kristinsson, Kari, 2011. "Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 500-509, April.
    16. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    17. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:9216-9221 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Krupa, Joseph S. & Rizzo, Donna M. & Eppstein, Margaret J. & Brad Lanute, D. & Gaalema, Diann E. & Lakkaraju, Kiran & Warrender, Christina E., 2014. "Analysis of a consumer survey on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 14-31.
    19. Arts, Joep W.C. & Frambach, Ruud T. & Bijmolt, Tammo H.A., 2011. "Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 134-144.
    20. Kruft, Tobias & Tilsner, Christoph & Schindler, Andreas & Kock, Alexander, 2019. "Persuasion in Corporate Idea Contests: The Moderating Role of Content Scarcity on Decision Making," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 118968, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    21. Valor, Carmen & Antonetti, Paolo & Crisafulli, Benedetta, 2022. "Emotions and consumers’ adoption of innovations: An integrative review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    22. Rob Bellamy & Shannon Osaka, 2020. "Unnatural climate solutions?," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(2), pages 98-99, February.
    23. Behnam Taebi, 2017. "Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1817-1827, October.
    24. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    25. Alexander J. Stewart & Nolan McCarty & Joanna J. Bryson, 2018. "Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline," Papers 1807.11477, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    26. Ornella Boutry & Simon Nadel, 2021. "Institutional Drivers of Environmental Innovation: Evidence from French Industrial Firms," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 135-167.
    27. van Oorschot, Johannes A.W.H. & Hofman, Erwin & Halman, Johannes I.M., 2018. "A bibliometric review of the innovation adoption literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-21.
    28. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kahouli, Bassem & Omri, Anis & Afi, Hatem, 2024. "Technological innovations and health performance: Effects and transmission channels," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Khuong, Phuong M. & Scheller, Fabian & McKenna, Russell & Keles, Dogan & Fichtner, Wolf, 2020. "Willingness to pay for residential PV: Reconciling gaps between acceptance and adoption," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 46, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).
    2. Northey, Gavin & Chan, Eugene Y., 2020. "Political conservatism and preference for (a)symmetric brand logos," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 149-159.
    3. Thomas Usslepp & Sandra Awanis & Margaret K Hogg & Ahmad Daryanto, 2022. "The Inhibitory Effect of Political Conservatism on Consumption: The Case of Fair Trade," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 519-531, March.
    4. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Mouter, Niek & de Geest, Auke & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 639-648.
    6. Guo, Yuntao & Souders, Dustin & Labi, Samuel & Peeta, Srinivas & Benedyk, Irina & Li, Yujie, 2021. "Paving the way for autonomous Vehicles: Understanding autonomous vehicle adoption and vehicle fuel choice under user heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 364-398.
    7. Dang, Ngoc Bich & Bertrandias, Laurent, 2023. "Social robots as healing aids: How and why powerlessness influences the intention to adopt social robots," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    9. Verena Schoenmueller & Oded Netzer & Florian Stahl, 2023. "Frontiers: Polarized America: From Political Polarization to Preference Polarization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 48-60, January.
    10. Chenfeng Yan & Quan Chen & Xinyue Zhou & Xin Dai & Zhilin Yang, 2024. "When the Automated fire Backfires: The Adoption of Algorithm-based HR Decision-making Could Induce Consumer’s Unfavorable Ethicality Inferences of the Company," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(4), pages 841-859, April.
    11. Lee, Min-Kyu & Nam, Jungho & Kim, Miju, 2023. "Valuing the public preference for offshore wind energy: The case study in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PB).
    12. Lagendijk, Arnoud & Kooij, Henk-Jan & Veenman, Sietske & Oteman, Marieke, 2021. "Noisy monsters or beacons of transition: The framing and social (un)acceptance of Dutch community renewable energy initiatives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    13. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    14. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    15. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    16. In-Hye Kang & Amna Kirmani, 2024. "Lying and Cheating the Company: The Positive and Negative Effects of Corporate Activism on Unethical Consumer Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 39-56, June.
    17. Valor, Carmen & Antonetti, Paolo & Crisafulli, Benedetta, 2022. "Emotions and consumers’ adoption of innovations: An integrative review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    18. Hoen, Ben & Darlow, Ryan & Haac, Ryan & Rand, Joseph & Kaliski, Ken, 2023. "Effects of land-based wind turbine upsizing on community sound levels and power and energy density," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    19. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    20. van den Berg, Kimo & Tempels, Barbara, 2022. "The role of community benefits in community acceptance of multifunctional solar farms in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:203:y:2024:i:c:s004016252400180x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.