IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infsem/v22y2024i2d10.1007_s10257-023-00652-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Teleworking antecedents: an exploration into availability bias as an impediment

Author

Listed:
  • Marie-E. Godefroid

    (University of Duisburg-Essen)

  • Vincent Borghoff

    (South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences)

  • Ralf Plattfaut

    (University of Duisburg-Essen)

  • Björn Niehaves

    (University of Bremen)

Abstract

Telework technologies have been known since the 1970s, yet their adoption levels remained low until Covid-19-related lockdowns and curfews. The known rational and non-rational technology acceptance theory and biases cannot fully explain this effect. One of the possible answers to fill this gap could be availability bias which has probably also affected the lag in adopting other technologies. To examine this phenomenon, we conducted a qualitative study with 22 interviews with individuals from different organizational backgrounds and telework adoption levels. Following a combination of inductive and deductive coding, we identified three key aspects of availability bias: intention, cognitive visibility, and cognitive transfer. The findings also allowed us to delineate this bias further from other biases, e.g., the status quo bias, and classical technology acceptance models, e.g., UTAUT. Thereby, this study examines a bias so far only very limitedly researched in the information systems and extends technology acceptance and cognitive bias literature. The findings should also enable practitioners to question their way of working and technology use more thoroughly.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie-E. Godefroid & Vincent Borghoff & Ralf Plattfaut & Björn Niehaves, 2024. "Teleworking antecedents: an exploration into availability bias as an impediment," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 247-284, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infsem:v:22:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10257-023-00652-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10257-023-00652-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10257-023-00652-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10257-023-00652-0?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. Detmar Straub & Moez Limayem & Elena Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995. "Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(8), pages 1328-1342, August.
    2. Vicente Peñarroja & Jesús Sánchez & Nuria Gamero & Virginia Orengo & Ana M. Zornoza, 2019. "The influence of organisational facilitating conditions and technology acceptance factors on the effectiveness of virtual communities of practice," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 845-857, August.
    3. Lena Waizenegger & Brad McKenna & Wenjie Cai & Taino Bendz, 2020. "An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 429-442, July.
    4. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    5. Chatterjee, Sheshadri & Chaudhuri, Ranjan & Vrontis, Demetris, 2022. "Does remote work flexibility enhance organization performance? Moderating role of organization policy and top management support," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1501-1512.
    6. Craig Van Slyke & Hoa Lou & John Day, 2002. "The Impact of Perceived Innovation Characteristics on Intention to Use Groupware," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    7. H Lou & W Luo & D Strong, 2000. "Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 91-103, June.
    8. Bassam Hasan, 2007. "Examining the Effects of Computer Self-Efficacy and System Complexity on Technology Acceptance," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 20(3), pages 76-88, July.
    9. Subhasish Dasgupta & Mary Granger & Nina McGarry, 2002. "User Acceptance of E-Collaboration Technology: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 87-100, March.
    10. Marcela-Sefora Nemteanu & Dan-Cristian Dabija & Liana Stanca, 2021. "The Influence of Teleworking on Performance and Employees’ Counterproductive Behaviour," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 23(58), pages 601-601, August.
    11. Bernadette Szajna, 1996. "Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 85-92, January.
    12. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    13. Janine Hacker & Jan vom Brocke & Joshua Handali & Markus Otto & Johannes Schneider, 2020. "Virtually in this together – how web-conferencing systems enabled a new virtual togetherness during the COVID-19 crisis," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 563-584, September.
    14. Justin Gallagher, 2014. "Learning about an Infrequent Event: Evidence from Flood Insurance Take-Up in the United States," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 206-233, July.
    15. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    16. Minh Hieu Nguyen, 2021. "Factors influencing home-based telework in Hanoi (Vietnam) during and after the COVID-19 era," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3207-3238, December.
    17. Ratten, Vanessa, 2016. "Continuance use intention of cloud computing: Innovativeness and creativity perspectives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1737-1740.
    18. Oksana Tokarchuk & Roberto Gabriele & Giorgio Neglia, 2021. "Teleworking during the Covid-19 Crisis in Italy: Evidence and Tentative Interpretations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-11, February.
    19. Mark Olschewski & Uta Renken & Benjamin Mueller, 2018. "Collaboration Technology Adoption: Is It Me or Them?," International Journal of Technology Diffusion (IJTD), IGI Global, vol. 9(3), pages 13-28, July.
    20. Yang Yuan & Fujun Lai & Zhaofang Chu, 2019. "Continuous usage intention of Internet banking: a commitment-trust model," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-25, March.
    21. Atef Chorfi & Djalal Hedjazi & Sofiane Aouag & Djalleleddine Boubiche, 2022. "Problem-based collaborative learning groupware to improve computer programming skills," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 139-158, 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. Jeeyeon Jeong & Yaeri Kim & Taewoo Roh, 2021. "Do Consumers Care About Aesthetics and Compatibility? The Intention to Use Wearable Devices in Health Care," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, August.
    2. Hsiao, Chun Hua & Yang, Chyan, 2011. "The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 128-136.
    3. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    4. Dong-Gil Ko & Alan R. Dennis, 2011. "Profiting from Knowledge Management: The Impact of Time and Experience," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 134-152, March.
    5. Escobar-Rodríguez, Tomás & Bartual-Sopena, Lourdes, 2015. "Impact of cultural factors on attitude toward using ERP systems in public hospitals," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 127-137.
    6. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    7. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non‐Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, April.
    8. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    9. Leković Milјan, 2020. "Cognitive Biases as an Integral Part of Behavioral Finance," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 58(1), pages 75-96, March.
    10. Wüstenhagen, Rolf & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2012. "Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-10.
    11. Sarv Devaraj & Ming Fan & Rajiv Kohli, 2002. "Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-Commerce Metrics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 316-333, September.
    12. Kousky, Carolyn & Rostapshova, Olga & Toman, Michael & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2009. "Responding to threats of climate change mega-catastrophes," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5127, The World Bank.
    13. Tian, Ye & Li, Yudi & Sun, Jian, 2022. "Stick or carrot for traffic demand management? Evidence from experimental economics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 235-254.
    14. Sandri, Serena & Schade, Christian & Mußhoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2010. "Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs' disinvestment choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-44, October.
    15. Barney Tan & Cheng Yi & Hock C. Chan, 2015. "Research Note—Deliberation Without Attention: The Latent Benefits of Distracting Website Features for Online Purchase Decisions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 437-455, June.
    16. Xin Xu & Viswanath Venkatesh & Kar Yan Tam & Se-Joon Hong, 2010. "Model of Migration and Use of Platforms: Role of Hierarchy, Current Generation, and Complementarities in Consumer Settings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1304-1323, August.
    17. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    18. Yadgar Taha M. Hamakhan, 2020. "The effect of individual factors on user behaviour and the moderating role of trust: an empirical investigation of consumers’ acceptance of electronic banking in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-29, December.
    19. Johannes Putzke & Detlef Schoder & Kai Fischbach, 2010. "Adoption of Mass-Customized Newspapers: An Augmented Technology Acceptance Perspective," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 143-164.
    20. Guy Barokas & Burak Ünveren, 2022. "Impressionable Rational Choice: Revealed-Preference Theory with Framing Effects," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(23), pages 1-19, November.

    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:spr:infsem:v:22:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10257-023-00652-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.