A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Dif

8/3/2019 A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Dif

1/28

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Vol. 83, No. 1, September, pp. 3360, 2000

doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2896, ava ilable online at ht tp://www.idealibra

A Longitudinal Field Investigatio

Differences in Individual TechnoloDecision-Making Proces

Viswanath Venkatesh


2/28

34 VENKATESH, MORRIS, AND ACKERMA

Organ izat iona l investm ent s in inform at ion techn olog

significan t ly in t h e pas t decade. These invest men ts s peindividua l productivity an d th us cont ribute to organ

While advances in technology continue at an astrono

these emerging information technologies has fallen w

(Johansen & Swigart, 1996; Moore, 1991; Norman, 19

ha s been ident ified as one of the plausible explana tionfrom IT investm ent s being less th an expected (Lan dau

Clear ly, un derst an ding th e factors influencing u ser acc

usage of emerging information technologies in the work

for researchers an d pra ctitioners


3/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

1991), includin g t ech n ology a doption an d us a ge (e.g., Ma

Todd, 1995). We conducted a longitudinal field investiences in th e r elat ive influence of at titu de toward us ing

n orm , an d perceived beha vior al con tr ol in deter min ing i

sust ained u sage of a new softwar e system in t he work

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INDIVIDUAL DEC

ABOUT TECHNOLOGY

The th eoret ical fra mework employed in t his resea rch


4/28


h ospita l pr oblem solvin g (St effen & Nyst r om, 1988). Si

ers h ave rep ort ed gender d ifferen ces in wha t is per ceiveethical (e.g., Dawson, 1995; Franke, Crown, and Sp

St eph ens on , 1993). In an oth er n ota ble stu dy, Tas h ak kor

to suggest th at th e att ribut es importa nt in determ ining

an d men a re different. Often su ch a tt ributes ar e man i

pr ocess in form a tion. Schema tic pr ocessing suggests t ha tan d pr ocessed consist ent with a specific cognitive st ru c

directs an individuals perceptions (Bem, 1981). As a

making process, perceptions and actions typically ten

created by specific schemas (e g Nisbett & Ross 1980


5/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

that using a particular technology will enhance his or

Specifically, t he link bet ween us efuln ess percept ions a na new technology has been shown to have path coeffic

(Da vis et a l., 1989) t o .79 (Ta ylor & Todd, 1995). Given t

can con clude th at even th ough a t tit u de is an a ffective r e

at titude toward using a techn ology in th e workplace r

and extrinsic motivation to use technology.Prior research provides a basis to expect gender diff

of inst ru men ta lity in decision-mak ing processes about a

on gender differences has suggested that for men, wor

salient role while t he fam ily r ole is per ceived to be le


6/28


Subjective Norm

Subjective n orm (SN) refers to t he perceived social

n ot to per for m th e beh a vior (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). In th

u sa ge, th e key factors un der lying subjective norm a re pe

or s in fluen ce (Ma t h ieson , 1991; Ta ylor & Todd, 1995).

technologies (being introduced in the organizations stwas volunt ar y, in organ izat iona l settings, th e norma tiv

ors an d peers dur ing th e ear ly stages of behavior is exp

on individual int ent . Such a direct link between subject

can be explained as compliance, where an individu


7/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

be more concerned (than men) with pleasing others (e.g

on a review of r esearch, Minton and Schneider (198somewhat more self-confident and independent than

people-oriented.

Another significant body of research suggests simila

basis of a different causal mechanism. There is evide

avera ge, women pay more at ten tion t o social cues a nd mto nonsocial cues such as objects and visual patterns (e.

1968; Parsons & Bales, 1955; Williams & Best, 1982).

o n a r e v i e w o f r e se a r c h i n t h e a r e a , su g g e st e d t h a t

are equally attentive and capable of processing socia


8/28


the behavior of interest (p. 183). Thus, in understand

in technology adoption, we focus on perceptions of ease context of technology adoption and usage in the workp

to suggest th at th e a vailability of support sta ff is an o

to help users overcome bar riers a nd h ur dles to techn olog

th e ear ly sta ges of lear ning a nd use (e.g., Bergeron, Riv

In fact, consultant support has been conceptually andinfluence per ceptions of beha viora l cont rol (Cra gg & K

al., 1997).

The resear ch bas e discuss ed in u nder sta nding gender

toward using t echn ology also helps u s u nder sta nd poten


9/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

H3(a): As a determ inan t of behaviora l int ent ion to u

behaviora l cont rol will influen ce women more t ha n it

H3(b): As a determinant of usage behavior, percei

will influence women more t ha n it will influen ce m en.

Behavioral In tention as a Determ inan t of S hort-Term

In ad dition to perceived beha vior al cont rol, int ent ion

system usage. There is extensive evidence in psycholog

a review; Ajzen & Madden , 1986) su pport ing th e role of


10/28


increasing experience of the particular behavior (i.e.,

quent behavior t ends t o be influen ced more by au tomatprocesses (Heckhausen & Beckmann, 1990) than by c

fact, in the case of habituated behaviors, based on a m

and Wood (1998) established tha t past behavior (

predictor of future behavior when compared to intenti

In predicting p ossible gender d ifferences in th e intentionsh ips, given t he fact th at women ar e more balance

in t he adoption an d u sage decisions (as out lined in H2

that past behavior may have less of an impact on futu

less responsive t o out side inpu ts F or th ose wh o tend t


11/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

None of the user s h ad an y prior kn owledge about th e s

being intr oduced.

Procedure

The specific softwa re being intr oduced in each organcategorized as an organization-wide system for data an

All pa r t icipa n t s received a fu ll-da y t r a inin g (six h ou r s), w

for t wo hour s, followed by t wo h ou r s of int er a ct ive lect u r

with h an ds-on u se) an d two hour s of ha nds-on use wit


12/28



13/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

prior experience is to examine the possible confounding

efficacy (CSE), defined as the extent to which an indivha s t he ability t o use a compu ter to complete a ta sk (s

1995). CSE is m or e likely t o pla y a role in influen cing dec

since it will reflect the feedback from experiences (i.e.

when compa red to mea sur es of just th e a mount of expe

ences a re not con fou n ded by th ese var iables, th e h ypoth edifferen ces sh ould be obser ved even a fter st a tist ica lly co

Measurement


14/28


TABLE 1

P r e l i m i n a r y A n a l y s i s o f D a t a P o o l e d a c r o s s O r g a n i z a t i o n

Validity

1 2

BI A

Cronbach .90 .90

BI 1 .9243 .1404 BI 2 .9094 .1702

A1 .1421 .9108

A2 .1320 .9204

A3 .1104 .8562


15/28

D e s c r i p t i v e S t a

Wom en Men

M S D M S D Gen der A1 SN 1 P

A1 4.12 1.03 5.10 0.90 .34*** .21* .2

SN 1 3.92 0.82 5.12 0.82 .31*** .20** .2

P BC 1 4.11 0.69 5.40 0.74 .25** .21** .27***

BI 1 3.73 0.91 5.23 1.02 .25** .46*** .17* .2

Use12 3.23 1 .40 7.93 1.88 .30*** .35*** .20** .1

A2 4.12 1.04 5.18 0.71 .35*** .32*** .15 .1

SN 2 3.80 0.89 4.87 0.79 .35*** .21* .18* .1

P BC 2 3.94 0.92 5.55 0.82 .37*** .07 .02 .3

BI 3 58 0 80 5 02 1 03 33*** 25** 20* 2


16/28



17/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

TABLE 4

H i e r a rc h i c a l R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s : G e n d e r, C o n fo u n d s , a n d

o n E a r l y I n t e n t i o n s (t 1)

St ep Va r ia bles en t er ed R 2

1 A .34

SN

P BC 2 INCOME .35

ORG LE VE L

E DUCATION

CSE


18/28


techn ology adoption an d usa ge beha vior is cru cial. Cle

initia l decision pr ocess t h at dr ives new t ech nology ad optin t he sh ort -term , which in t ur n influences susta ined u

th at early int entions form ed by women an d m en will h

on their usage of the said new technologyit is critic

un derlying dr ivers of th ese sta ble ear ly inten tions ar e d

men . Gender differences were observed even when keyvar iables (i.e., incom e, orga nizat ion level, edu cat ion, an d

were ta ken into accoun t.

In th is resear ch, t he longitu dinal investigat ion of th

nology adoption and usage behavior confirmed tha t


19/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

be sen sitive to possible divers ity in decision-ma kin g pr o

an d m en. F or exam ple, sensitivity t o gender differencetions for both t r ain ing an d ma rk etin g. To m aximize over

progra ms m ight be tailored t o emph asize factors t ha t a r

For exam ple, tr ainer s sh ould be cognizan t of the n eed t

ity-enha ncement factors (e.g., u sefulness) which ar e m

They sh ould also ta ke car e to ensu re th is emph asis does of oth er factors th at ma y be more salient to women (e

other referents and availability of adequate support)

professionals may also capitalize on these findings by

cam paigns which appeal t o both women an d men t he


20/28


have compromised other aspects of the study (e.g., res

Given the encouraging findings regarding gender diffadoption an d usa ge decisions, fut ur e work should exa

by including the underlying belief structure to create t

organizational interventions to enhance technology ad

Another TPB-related a rea for fut ur e r esear ch to foc

techn ology ad opt ion in gener a l an d th e associat ed gen de

lar is the use of behavioral expectation (rather than b

a key predictor of behavior. The use of behavioral exp

has been shown to be important in cases where the c

volitionality are not met (e g Warshaw & Davis 198


21/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

u se t echn ology in t he work place. One p oten t ial extens io

der differences could be to examine the role of househomore accur at ely reflect an d reveal pat tern s of indivi

ways of thinking, in relationship to socio-economic

organization level was adapted from prior research a

th e organ izat ions stu died, but oth er schem es of opera t

level are also worthy of study. Similarly, further work

r ole of edu cat ion level should u se oth er mea su res of int

or domain knowledge (e.g., computer aptitude tests). W

in t he presen t work , th e pa rt icipatin g organ izat ions we

and therefore opposed to publications discussing findin


22/28


Graduated high school G

Vocational/technical school P

Annual Individual Income: Less t ha n $20,000 $

(Before Taxes) $20,000 - $29,999 $

$30,000 - $39,999 $

$40,000 - $49,999 $

$50,000 - $59,999 $

Position: Executive/Top Management Admi

Middle Management Techn


23/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1985). Fr om int ent ions t o actions: A th eory of plan ned beh av

(Eds.), Action cont rol: From cognition to behav ior (pp. 1139). N e

Ajzen, I. (1991). Th e th eory of plan ned behavior. Organizational Be

Processes, 50, 179211.

Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. (1992). Application of the theory of planne

Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 207224.Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavi

perceived behavioral control. J ourn al of Experim ental S ocial Psyc

Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of s

of Personality and Social Psychology 41 607 627


24/28


Bren ner, O. C., Blazini, A. P., & Green ha us , J . H. (1988). An exa min at

in managerial work values. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 3

Carlson, R. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory s

nion. J ourn al of Consu lting an d Clinical Psychology, 37, 267277

Chen, M. (1985). Gender differences in adolescents uses of and att

M. McLaughlan (Ed.), Communication yearbook, (vol. 10, pp. 200

Chodorow, N. (1974). Fa mily str uctu re a nd femin ine per sonality. In M

(Eds.), Women, culture, and society. P alo Alto: Stan ford Un iv. P res

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral scie

Erlbaum.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: D


25/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender differen

bus iness p ra ctices: A social r ole th eory per spective. J ourn al of App

Galbraith, S. , & Stephenson, H. B. (1993). Decision rules used b

students in ethical value judgements. Journal of Business Ethics,

Garai, J. E., & Scheinfeld, A. (1968). Sex differences in mental an

Psychology Monographs, 77, 169299.

Gianakos, I., & Subich, L. M. (1988). Student sex and sex role in rela

Career Developm ent Qua rterly, 36, 259268.

Gill, S., Stocka rd , J ., J ohnson, M., & William , S. (1987). Measu rin g ge

sive dimension and critique of androgyny scales. Sex Roles, 17, 37

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U


26/28


Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex diff

Un iv. P ress.

Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Compar ing the t

with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Researc

Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women . Boston: Be

Minton, C., Kagan, J., & Levine, J. A. (1971). Maternal control and o

Child Development, 42, 18731894.

Minton, H. L., & Schneider, F. W. (1980). Differential psychology.

land P ress.

Mirowsky, J ., & Ross, C. E. (1990). Contr ol or defense? Depression

good and bad outcomes. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 3


27/28

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Schuler, R. (1975). Sex, organizational level, and outcome importanc

Personnel Psychology, 28, 365375.

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory

an alysis of past r esearch with recomm enda tions for m odificat ions

of Consumer Research , 15, 325343.

Sichel, D. E. (1997). Th e com puter revolution: An econom ic perspe

Brookings Institution.

Skitka, L. J., & Maslach, C. (1996). Gender as schematic categoryS ocial Behavior and Personality, 24, 5374.

Sparks, P., Guth rie, C. A., & Sh epherd, R. (1997). The Dimensiona

Behavioral Control Construct. Journal of Applied Social Psycholo


28/28


Weiner, L. R. (1993). Digit al woes : W hy we s houl d not depend

Addison-Wesley.

Weller, L., Shlomi, A., & Zimont , G. (1976). Birt h order, sex, a nd oc

of Vocational Behavior, 8, 4550.

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A

Hills: Sage.

Wilson, J . S., St ockin g, V. B., & Goldstein, D. (1994). Gend er differen

selection: Academically t alented st udents in an intensive su mm349350.

Received March 2, 1999; published online J uly 27, 2000

Documents

A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Dif