IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p8188-d855892.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Keeping Things as They Are: How Status Quo Biases and Traditions along with a Lack of Information Transparency in the Building Industry Slow Down the Adoption of Innovative Sustainable Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Björn Hofman

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Gerdien de Vries

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Geerten van de Kaa

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of this century. To contain its effects, the way we act would have to change significantly. Especially in the building sector, much progress can be made. Attempts have been made to stimulate sustainable behavior in the industry, for example, by implementing sustainable building measures in construction designs. However, adoption rates of these measures are low and behavioral change among building professionals is needed. Knowing why building professionals hold back in their use of these measures could support this behavioral change. This knowledge could, for example, inform energy policies or organizational strategies. That is why this study utilized the technology acceptance model and presents psychological factors as barriers to innovative sustainable building measure adoption in an organizational context. A survey among building professionals involved in real estate development ( n = 109) was used to explore how conservatism within the building industry hinders adopting the building measures. To represent conservatism, we selected two cognitive biases that can be interpreted as a manifestation of status quo bias and confirmation bias, both fueled by information hassle (a micro-stressor caused by complex information). The effects of these variables on the adoption of sustainable building measures were tested using structural equation modeling, a methodology suitable for testing complex models and commonly used in behavioral research. Survey data indicate that conservatism is an essential barrier for building professionals to adopt sustainable building measures and that it increases when knowledge is low and information is complex. Based on these findings, we argue that policies and organizational strategies that attack these psychological barriers could promote the adoption of innovative sustainable building measures within the building sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Björn Hofman & Gerdien de Vries & Geerten van de Kaa, 2022. "Keeping Things as They Are: How Status Quo Biases and Traditions along with a Lack of Information Transparency in the Building Industry Slow Down the Adoption of Innovative Sustainable Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8188-:d:855892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8188/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8188/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Fasnacht, 2018. "Open Innovation Ecosystems," Management for Professionals, Springer, edition 2, number 978-3-319-76394-1, December.
    2. Piotr Tarka, 2018. "An overview of structural equation modeling: its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 313-354, January.
    3. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    4. Katie Williams & Carol Dair, 2007. "What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 135-147.
    5. Claudia Aravena & Andrés Riquelme & Eleanor Denny, 2016. "Money, Comfort or Environment? Priorities and Determinants of Energy Efficiency Investments in Irish Households," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 159-186, June.
    6. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    7. Daniel Fasnacht, 2018. "Open Innovation in the Financial Services," Management for Professionals, in: Open Innovation Ecosystems, edition 2, chapter 4, pages 97-130, Springer.
    8. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ko de Ruyter & Martin Wetzels & Paul Oosterveld, 2004. "Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-36, February.
    9. Tykkä, Saana & McCluskey, Denise & Nord, Tomas & Ollonqvist, Pekka & Hugosson, Mårten & Roos, Anders & Ukrainski, Kadri & Nyrud, Anders Q. & Bajric, Fahrudin, 2010. "Development of timber framed firms in the construction sector -- Is EU policy one source of their innovation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 199-206, March.
    10. Christopher Wickert & Andreas Georg Scherer & Laura J. Spence, 2016. "Walking and Talking Corporate Social Responsibility: Implications of Firm Size and Organizational Cost," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(7), pages 1169-1196, November.
    11. Ostlund, Lyman E, 1974. "Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of Innovativeness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 23-29, Se.
    12. Druckman, James N., 2001. "Evaluating framing effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, February.
    13. Ganzach, Yoav & Karsahi, Nili, 1995. "Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 11-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Collins, Matthew & Dempsey, Seraphim & Curtis, John, 2017. "Financial incentives for residential energy efficiency investments in Ireland: Should the status quo be maintained?," Papers WP562, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    2. Elbæk, Christian T. & Lystbæk, Martin Nørhede & Mitkidis, Panagiotis, 2022. "On the psychology of bonuses: The effects of loss aversion and Yerkes-Dodson law on performance in cognitively and mechanically demanding tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    4. Lin, Tung-Ching & Huang, Shiu-Li & Hsu, Chieh-Ju, 2015. "A dual-factor model of loyalty to IT product – The case of smartphones," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 215-228.
    5. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Susanne Neckermann & Sally Sadoff, 2016. "The Behavioralist Goes to School: Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Improve Educational Performance," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 183-219, November.
    6. Chulmo Koo & Namho Chung & Juyeon Ham, 2017. "Assessing the User Resistance to Recommender Systems in Exhibition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    7. Sham, Rohana & Chong, Han Xi & Cheng-Xi Aw, Eugene & Bibi Tkm Thangal, Thahira & Abdamia, Noranita binti, 2023. "Switching up the delivery game: Understanding switching intention to retail drone delivery services," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    8. Roland Fryer & Steven Levitt & John List & Sally Sadoff, 2012. "Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00591, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Patrick Ring & Ulrich Schmidt, 2019. "Skin conductance responses in anticipation of gains and losses," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 38-50, August.
    10. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    11. Frambach, Ruud T. & Schillewaert, Niels, 2002. "Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 163-176, February.
    12. Hoffmann, Arvid O.I. & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J., 2010. "Understanding investors' decisions to purchase innovative products: Drivers of adoption timing and range," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 342-355.
    13. Souheila Kaabachi, 2012. "Les facteurs d'adoption des services bancaires islamiques en Tunisie," Post-Print hal-01878310, HAL.
    14. Wang, Yu-Yin & Wang, Yi-Shun & Lin, Tung-Ching, 2018. "Developing and validating a technology upgrade model," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 7-26.
    15. Giousmpasoglou, Charalampos & Dinh, Dzung, 2022. "Using contactless mobile payment in the Vietnamese restaurant industry," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 3-15.
    16. Heribert Gierl & Roland Helm & Stefan Stumpp, 2001. "Wertfunktion der Prospect-Theorie, Produktpräferenzen und Folgerungen für das Marketing," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 559-588, September.
    17. Donald Amoroso & Ricardo Lim & Francisco L. Roman, 2021. "The Effect of Reciprocity on Mobile Wallet Intention: A Study of Filipino Consumers," International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management (IJABIM), IGI Global, vol. 12(2), pages 57-83, April.
    18. Aftab Alam, Muhammad & Rooney, David & Taylor, Murray, 2022. "Measuring Inter-Firm Openness in Innovation Ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 436-456.
    19. Zied Mani & Inès Chouk, 2018. "Consumer Resistance to Innovation in Services," Post-Print hal-03700875, HAL.
    20. Vikas Chauhan & Rambalak Yadav & Vipin Choudhary, 2022. "Adoption of electronic banking services in India: an extension of UTAUT2 model," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 27-40, March.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8188-:d:855892. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.