IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitmx/v08y2011i04ns0219877011002556.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opening The Black Box Of Technology Adoption: The Motive-Technology-Belief Framework

Author

Listed:
  • BRENT A. ZENOBIA

    (Department of Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, P. O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207, USA)

  • CHARLES M. WEBER

    (Department of Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, P. O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207, USA)

Abstract

A qualitative empirical study explores the psychological process by which transportation consumers adopt alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. The study's findings give rise to the Motive-Technology-Belief (MTB) framework, a theory that conceives of technology adoption in terms of three mental structures: motives are inner mental reasons; technologies are tools that pertain to motives; and beliefs are associations between motives and/or technologies. Their behavioral interactions are governed by three conscious processes: selecting is the process of choosing a tool in response to an immediate need; evaluating is the process of forming beliefs about tools; and maintaining is the process of determining the functional status of tools. They are augmented by five unconscious auxiliary processes: perceiving, focusing, framing, consolidating, and acting.The primary contribution of this paper is the first coherent theory that explains some of the inner mental processes pertaining to technology adoption. However, the study described in this paper also combines existing theory with original field research to lay the foundation for a more comprehensive causal theory of the adoption process that will provide a step-by-step explanation of how events or life experiences cause a consumer's beliefs about a technology to change over time. Finally, the study identifies evaluating, selecting, maintaining, and the auxiliary processes that govern motivation as fundamental "microlaws" of innovation i.e. regular rules describing the generating processes of emergent innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Brent A. Zenobia & Charles M. Weber, 2011. "Opening The Black Box Of Technology Adoption: The Motive-Technology-Belief Framework," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(04), pages 535-555.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitmx:v:08:y:2011:i:04:n:s0219877011002556
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219877011002556
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219877011002556
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219877011002556?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. Goldstein,William M. & Hogarth,Robin M. (ed.), 1997. "Research on Judgment and Decision Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521483346, September.
    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. McKenzie, Craig R.M. & Liersch, Michael J. & Yaniv, Ilan, 2008. "Overconfidence in interval estimates: What does expertise buy you?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 179-191, November.
    2. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    3. Andersson, Patric, 2005. "Overconfident but yet well-calibrated and underconfident : a research not on judgmental miscalibration and flawed self-assessment," Papers 05-37, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    4. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 124-144, September.
    5. Engel, Christoph & Weber, Elke U., 2007. "The impact of institutions on the decision how to decide," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 323-349, December.
    6. Jongbin Jung & Connor Concannon & Ravi Shroff & Sharad Goel & Daniel G. Goldstein, 2020. "Simple rules to guide expert classifications," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 771-800, June.
    7. Michel Barabel & Olivier Meier, 2002. "Biais cognitifs du dirigeant, conséquences et facteurs de renforcement lors de fusions-acquisitions:synthèse et illustrations," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 5(1), pages 5-42, March.
    8. Vandegrift, Donald & Brown, Paul, 2005. "Gender differences in the use of high-variance strategies in tournament competition," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 834-849, December.
    9. Andersson, Patric, 2003. "Winning decisions: How to make the right decision the first time, J. Edward Russo and Paul J.H. Schoemaker, 2002, Piatkus Publishing Limited, London (paperback), p. 340, ISBN: 07499 2285 0, [UK pound]," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 795-797, December.
    10. Lívia Markóczy & Jeff Goldberg, 1999. "Management, organization and human nature: an introduction," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(7-8), pages 387-409.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:195-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Clintin P. Davis-Stober & Nicholas Brown, 2011. "A shift in strategy or "error"? Strategy classification over multiple stochastic specifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 800-813, December.
    13. Nguyen, Y. & Noussair, C.N., 2013. "Risk Aversion and Emotions," Other publications TiSEM 301ffce6-a78a-47fe-a375-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Donald Vandegrift & Abdullah Yavas, 2010. "An Experimental Test of Sabotage in Tournaments," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 166(2), pages 259-285, June.
    15. Marcin Rzeszutek & Adam Szyszka & Monika Czerwonka, 2015. "Investors’ Expertise, Personality Traits and Susceptibility to Behavioral Biases in the Decision Making Process," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 9(3), September.
    16. Stijn Osselaer & Suresh Ramanathan & Margaret Campbell & Joel Cohen & Jeannette Dale & Paul Herr & Chris Janiszewski & Arie Kruglanski & Angela Lee & Stephen Read & J. Russo & Nader Tavassoli, 2005. "Choice Based on Goals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 335-346, December.
    17. Philip T. Dunwoody, 2009. "Theories of truth as assessment criteria in judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(2), pages 116-125, March.
    18. Baethge, Caroline & Fiedler, Marina, 2016. "All or (almost) nothing? The influence of information cost and training on information selection and the quality of decision-making," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Betriebswirtschaftliche Reihe B-19-16, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    19. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 335-354, August.
    20. Dimitrios Kourtidis & Željko Šević & Prodromos Chatzoglou, 2016. "Mood and stock returns: evidence from Greece," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 43(2), pages 242-258, May.
    21. Damian Morgan & Joan Ozanne-Smith, 2019. "A configural model of expert judgement as a preliminary epidemiological study of injury problems: An application to drowning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, October.

    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:wsi:ijitmx:v:08:y:2011:i:04:n:s0219877011002556. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijitm/ijitm.shtml .

    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.