IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v27y2016i1p197-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Note—Using Expectation Disconfirmation Theory and Polynomial Modeling to Understand Trust in Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy K. Lankton

    (Lewis College of Business, Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 25755)

  • D. Harrison McKnight

    (Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824)

  • Ryan T. Wright

    (Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003)

  • Jason Bennett Thatcher

    (College of Business and Behavioral Science, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634)

Abstract

Trust in technology is an emerging research domain that examines trust in the technology artifact instead of trust in people. Although previous research finds that trust in technology can predict important outcomes, little research has examined the effect of unmet trust in technology expectations on trusting intentions. Furthermore, both trust and expectation disconfirmation theories suggest that trust disconfirmation effects may be more complex than the linear expectation disconfirmation model depicts. However, this complexity may only exist under certain contextual conditions. The current study contributes to this literature by introducing a nonlinear expectation disconfirmation theory model that extends understanding of trust-in-technology expectations and disconfirmation. Not only does the model include both technology trust expectations and technology trusting intention, it also introduces the concept of expectation maturity as a contextual factor. We collected data from three technology usage contexts that differ in expectation maturity, which we operationalize as length of the introductory period. We find that the situation, in terms of expectation maturity, consistently matters. Using polynomial regression and response surface analyses, we find that in contexts with a longer introductory period (i.e., higher expectation maturity), disconfirmation has a nonlinear relationship with trusting intention. When the introductory period is shorter (i.e., expectation maturity is lower), disconfirmation has a linear relationship with trusting intention. This unique set of empirical findings shows when it is valuable to use nonlinear modeling for understanding technology trust disconfirmation. We conclude with implications for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy K. Lankton & D. Harrison McKnight & Ryan T. Wright & Jason Bennett Thatcher, 2016. "Research Note—Using Expectation Disconfirmation Theory and Polynomial Modeling to Understand Trust in Technology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 197-213, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:197-213
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2015.0611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0611
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2015.0611?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oliver, Richard L & DeSarbo, Wayne S, 1988. "Response Determinants in Satisfaction Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(4), pages 495-507, March.
    2. Adobor, Henry, 2005. "Trust as sensemaking: the microdynamics of trust in interfirm alliances," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 330-337, March.
    3. Edwards, Jeffrey R., 1994. "The Study of Congruence in Organizational Behavior Research: Critique and a Proposed Alternative," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 51-100, April.
    4. Brown, Susan A. & Venkatesh, Viswanath & Kuruzovich, Jason & Massey, Anne P., 2008. "Expectation confirmation: An examination of three competing models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 52-66, January.
    5. Whetten, David A., 2009. "An Examination of the Interface between Context and Theory Applied to the Study of Chinese Organizations," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 29-56, March.
    6. Eugene W. Anderson & Mary W. Sullivan, 1993. "The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 125-143.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    9. Weiyin Hong & Frank K. Y. Chan & James Y. L. Thong & Lewis C. Chasalow & Gurpreet Dhillon, 2014. "A Framework and Guidelines for Context-Specific Theorizing in Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 111-136, March.
    10. D. Harrison McKnight & Vivek Choudhury & Charles Kacmar, 2002. "Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 334-359, September.
    11. Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer, 2003. "Trust as an Organizing Principle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 91-103, February.
    12. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Thomas R. Shaw & D. Sandy Staples, 2004. "Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 250-267, September.
    13. Chakravarty, Anindita & Liu, Yong & Mazumdar, Tridib, 2010. "The Differential Effects of Online Word-of-Mouth and Critics' Reviews on Pre-release Movie Evaluation," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 185-197.
    14. Susan A. Brown & Viswanath Venkatesh & Sandeep Goyal, 2012. "Expectation Confirmation in Technology Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 474-487, June.
    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. Khondker Mohammad Zobair & Louis Sanzogni & Luke Houghton & Md Zahidul Islam, 2021. "Forecasting care seekers satisfaction with telemedicine using machine learning and structural equation modeling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-31, September.
    2. Masood Ul Hassan & Muhammad Shahid Iqbal & Ume Habibah, 2020. "Self-Service Technology Service Quality: Building Loyalty and Intention Through Technology Trust in Pakistani Service Sector," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, June.
    3. Yang, Xue & Liu, Na & Teo, Hock Hai, 2017. "How do users cope with trial restrictions? A field experiment on free trial software," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 339-349.
    4. Emmanuel W. Ayaburi & Jaeung Lee & Michele Maasberg, 0. "Understanding Crowdsourcing Contest Fitness Strategic Decision Factors and Performance: An Expectation-Confirmation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    5. Samer Faraj & Georg von Krogh & Eric Monteiro & Karim R. Lakhani, 2016. "Special Section Introduction—Online Community as Space for Knowledge Flows," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 668-684, December.
    6. Ma, Liang & Zhang, Xin & Ding, Xiaoyan & Wang, Gaoshan, 2018. "Bike sharing and users’ subjective well-being: An empirical study in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 14-24.
    7. Badghish, Saeed & Shaik, Aqueeb Sohail & Sahore, Nidhi & Srivastava, Shalini & Masood, Ayesha, 2024. "Can transactional use of AI-controlled voice assistants for service delivery pickup pace in the near future? A social learning theory (SLT) perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    8. Adnan Muhammad Shah & Wazir Muhammad & Kangyoon Lee & Rizwan Ali Naqvi, 2021. "Examining Different Factors in Web-Based Patients’ Decision-Making Process: Systematic Review on Digital Platforms for Clinical Decision Support System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-23, October.
    9. Gang Chen & Shuaiyong Xiao & Chenghong Zhang & Huimin Zhao, 2023. "A Theory-Driven Deep Learning Method for Voice Chat–Based Customer Response Prediction," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1513-1532, December.
    10. Emmanuel W. Ayaburi & Jaeung Lee & Michele Maasberg, 2020. "Understanding Crowdsourcing Contest Fitness Strategic Decision Factors and Performance: An Expectation-Confirmation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1227-1240, October.

    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. Dan J. Kim & Donald L. Ferrin & H. Raghav Rao, 2009. "Trust and Satisfaction, Two Stepping Stones for Successful E-Commerce Relationships: A Longitudinal Exploration," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 237-257, June.
    2. Viswanath Venkatesh & James Y. L. Thong & Frank K. Y. Chan & Paul J. H. Hu, 2016. "Managing Citizens’ Uncertainty in E-Government Services: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Transparency and Trust," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 87-111, March.
    3. Roland T. Rust & J. Jeffrey Inman & Jianmin Jia & Anthony Zahorik, 1999. "What You Know About Customer-Perceived Quality: The Role of Customer Expectation Distributions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 77-92.
    4. Wallbach, Sören, 2020. "Assimilation and Diffusion of Multi-Sided Platforms in Dynamic B2B Networks: Inhibiting Factors and Their Consequences," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 123277, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    5. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2022. "Adoption and use of AI tools: a research agenda grounded in UTAUT," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 308(1), pages 641-652, January.
    6. Susan A. Brown & Viswanath Venkatesh & Sandeep Goyal, 2012. "Expectation Confirmation in Technology Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 474-487, June.
    7. Andreas Herrmann & Michael D. Johnson, 1999. "Die Kundenzufriedenheit als Bestimmungsfaktor der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 579-598, June.
    8. Vishal Gaur & Young-Hoon Park, 2007. "Asymmetric Consumer Learning and Inventory Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 227-240, February.
    9. Heribert Gierl & Gunter Gehrke, 2004. "Kundenbindung in industriellen Zuliefer-Abnehmer-Beziehungen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 203-236, May.
    10. Sara Moussawi & Marios Koufaris & Raquel Benbunan-Fich, 2021. "How perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorphism affect adoption of personal intelligent agents," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 343-364, June.
    11. Petschnig, Martin & Heidenreich, Sven & Spieth, Patrick, 2014. "Innovative alternatives take action – Investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 68-83.
    12. Kristin Masuch & Maike Greve & Simon Trang, 2021. "What to do after a data breach? Examining apology and compensation as response strategies for health service providers," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(4), pages 829-848, December.
    13. Michael Breward & Khaled Hassanein & Milena Head, 2017. "Understanding Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Controversial Information Technologies: A Contextualization Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 760-774, December.
    14. Jeffrey Dotson & Joseph Retzer & Greg Allenby, 2008. "Non-normal simultaneous regression models for customer linkage analysis," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 257-277, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Juin-Hao Ho & Gwo-Guang Lee & Ming-Tsang Lu, 2020. "Exploring the Implementation of a Legal AI Bot for Sustainable Development in Legal Advisory Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-17, July.
    17. Khan, Kamran & Hameed, Irfan, 2017. "The mediation of customer satisfaction and moderation of Price: Evidence from the generation Y users of cell phones," MPRA Paper 91773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Gaby Odekerken-Schröder & Bloemer Josée, 2002. "Constraints and Dedication as Drivers for Relationship Commitment: An Empirical Study in a Health-Care Context," Research Memorandum 078, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    19. Emmanuel W. Ayaburi & Jaeung Lee & Michele Maasberg, 0. "Understanding Crowdsourcing Contest Fitness Strategic Decision Factors and Performance: An Expectation-Confirmation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    20. Ahmed Abbasi & David Dobolyi & Anthony Vance & Fatemeh Mariam Zahedi, 2021. "The Phishing Funnel Model: A Design Artifact to Predict User Susceptibility to Phishing Websites," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 410-436, June.

    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:inm:orisre:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:197-213. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.