A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior.

Full text

Page 1

A Multidimensional Commitment Model of
Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior


Yogesh Malhotra* and Dennis Galletta**
* Syracuse University Whitman School of Management, yogesh@syr.edu
**Temple University, Fox School of Business & Management, galletta@temple.edu

Please send all communications to the first author at:
* Syracuse University
Whitman School of Management
Syracuse, NY 13244
E-mail: yogesh@syr.edu
Phone: (315) 443-3571, fax: (315) 443-5457.

** Temple University
210C Speakman Hall, School of Business & Management
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(Note: this work was done while at the University of Pittsburgh,
Katz Graduate School of Business, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, 412-648-1699)
E-mail: galletta@temple.edu
Phone: (215) 204-2029, fax: (215) 204-3101



Accepted for Publication in the
Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer, 2005
Order your copies of the journal and reprints from:
http://jmis.bentley.edu//

Acknowledgements: We are grateful to the editor-in-chief and the three anonymous reviewers
whose constructive and critical insights have contributed to improvements during the blind review
of this paper. The primary author acknowledges partial research support from the Snyder
Innovation Management Research Center and the Center for Creation and Management of
Digital Ventures at the Syracuse University Whitman School of Management.

Page 2

1
A Multidimensional Commitment Model of
Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior

Abstract: In recent years, several organizations have implemented non-mandatory information
and communication systems that escape the conventional behavioral logic of understanding
acceptance and usage from a normative perspective of compliance with the beliefs of others.
Because voluntary systems require users’ volitional behavior, researchers have traced recent
implementation failures to a lack of user commitment. However, gaps in our understanding of
volitional usage behavior and user commitment have made it difficult to advance theory,
research, and practice on this issue. To validate a proposed research model, cross-sectional,
between-subjects, and within-subjects field data were collected from 714 users at the time of
initial adoption and after six months of extended use. The model explained between 44.1% and
58.5% of the variance in adoption and usage behavior based upon direct effects of user
commitment. Findings suggest that user commitment plays a critical role in the volitional
acceptance and usage of such systems. Affective commitment, i.e., internalization and
identification based upon personal norms, exhibits a sustained positive influence on usage
behavior. In contrast, continuance commitment, i.e., compliance based upon social norms, shows
a sustained negative influence from initial adoption to extended use. Theory development based
upon Kelman’s social influence framework offers new empirical insights about system users’
commitment and how it affects volitional usage behavior.

Keywords: information systems acceptance and use, system user commitment, volitional usage
behavior, systems implementation, user commitment, Kelman’s social influence theory,
compliance, identification, internalization, social norms, personal norms, cognitive processes,
affective processes, psychological attachment, multidimensional commitment model.

Page 3

1
A Multidimensional Commitment Model of
Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior

Introduction
Organizational information systems were once primarily used to enforce managerial
compliance for the execution of specific work activities. Accordingly, prior information systems
(IS) acceptance and usage research focused mainly on understanding systems usage behavior
from the perspective of social normative compliance [40, 70, 71]. This perspective considers the
principal challenge as motivating the system user to ‘comply’ and ‘conform’ to the beliefs of
salient others. Accordingly, prior research paid sparse attention to how the system user’s own
beliefs influence commitment to adopt and use technology.
However, in recent years, many organizations began implementing new types of
information and communication systems that involve volitional communication, collaboration,
and coordination activities [2, 29, 63]. Both practitioners and researchers recognize that
managerial coercion to achieve compliance is often neither feasible nor economical. Several
surveys and case studies have found that systems intended to support those self-determined
knowledge activities, such as use, sharing, creation, and renewal, often fail because of the lack of
user commitment [2, 29, 39, 42, 43, 63].
For instance, potential users of the $6.9 billion Navy/Marine Corps Intranet (N/MCI)
project were “fighting N/MCI so long, it (became) a passion” for them [73, p. 16]. Their lack of
commitment prolonged the expected project duration eight-fold: it took two years to do what
could have been accomplished in 90 days. Similarly, a scientist at Pillsbury who developed a
simple system for “knowledge sharing,” seeded it with questions, and sent out e-mail invitations
to potential participants. After six months of waiting, however, not even a single user had posted
any messages [11].
The same distinctive characteristics that make such systems dependent upon volitional
usage also limit the effectiveness of managerial mandates for enforcing their use through social
normative compliance. Rather, such systems require proactive commitment of users to share,

Page 4

2
create, and renew knowledge through the activities of communication, collaboration, and
coordination. Recognizing this critical need, many have called for a better understanding of
volitional systems usage behavior [2, 5, 24, 29, 41-43, 65, 79]. In response, the current study
develops the first known theoretical, psychometric, and empirical understanding of the volitional
nature of system user commitment and how it affects volitional system usage behavior.
The proposed theoretical constructs and the research model were examined in a field
setting, and cross-sectional, between-subjects, and within-subjects data were collected from 714
system users at the time of initial adoption and after six months of extended use. Theory
development based upon Kelman’s social influence theory offers new empirical insights about
system users’ commitment and how it affects volitional usage behavior. Theoretical and
psychometric validity of the proposed model is augmented by the use of precise constructs and
measures substantially supported by four decades of socio-psychological behavioral research on
the psychology of commitment [34-36].
Besides developing a theoretically precise and psychometrically consistent
conceptualization of the system user commitment construct, other key objectives of this research
include developing theoretical, psychometric, and empirical understanding of: (1) how user
commitment affects volitional systems usage behavior; (2) how different types of commitment
have differential influence on volitional systems usage behavior; and (3) how different types and
levels of commitment evolve from initial adoption to extended use of a system.
In the next section, we review prior theoretical and empirical research on commitment
that draws upon Kelman’s theory of social influences and the multidimensional commitment
model. Then we discuss a research model of differential commitments based on Kelman’s social
influence processes that take into account both personal and social norms. Subsequently, we
focus on research methodology issues including sample, instruments, design, data collection
procedures, and analysis of measures and hypotheses. Finally, we discuss the study’s results,
limitations, future research directions, and implications for research and practice.

Page 5

3
Theory Development
The volitional nature of self-determined systems usage activities of communication,
collaboration, and coordination makes them critically dependent upon user commitment. It is
important that users be active and engaged not only for using information but also for sharing,
creating, and renewing it. ‘Knowledge repositories’ and ‘communities of practice,’ for example,
often rely upon users to both make effective use of, and contribute proactively to, their
sustenance. However, such proactive engagement and volitional contributions often depend upon
users’ personal norms and values [20].
From the normative social compliance perspective, managerial attempts to enforce usage
through ‘quotas’ (such as the number of messages that ‘must’ be read or posted) are
uneconomical to enforce, and even when enforced, may at best yield sub-optimal contributions.
As evident from the earlier vignettes, stiff user resistance and implementation failure are likely
outcomes. Hence, it is critical to distinguish between different levels and types of commitment,
as less managerial control might actually be necessary for achieving more proactive usage.
Kelman’s social influence theory provides a well-established basis for distinguishing a
variety of types and levels of commitment. This theory has motivated substantial cumulative
research on commitment in the context of organizational work behaviors. Unfortunately, prior IS
research has taken a very limited perspective of Kelman’s theory by interpreting it from a
cognitive perspective with primary focus on social normative compliance [19, 40, 70]. Known
psychometric and theoretical limitations of subjective norms [observed by 17, 19, 40, 74] limit
its reliability as a proxy for user commitment despite the popularity of this practice in prior IS
research. Also, as shown in Table 1, the use of divergent social influence theories has resulted in
interpretations that are inconsistent with four decades of cumulative research on Kelman’s
processes of commitment [34, 36].
___________________________________
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
___________________________________