Content uploaded by Joschka Mütterlein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joschka Mütterlein on Dec 03, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 1
Making Sense of Digital Innovations:
The Role of the Material Artefact
Short Paper
Joschka Mütterlein
LMU Munich
Ludwigstr. 28, 80539 Munich
muetterlein@bwl.lmu.de
Verena Thürmel
LMU Munich
Ludwigstr. 28, 80539 Munich
thuermel@bwl.lmu.de
Thomas Hess
LMU Munich
Ludwigstr. 28, 80539 Munich
thess@bwl.lmu.de
Abstract
Users’ perceptions of a material artefact hold important implications of how they make
sense of a digital innovation, expressed in their technological frames about the
innovation. Yet, research on sensemaking offers little insights on the role of the material
artefact for shaping users’ technological frames. This paper proposes a 2x2 experiment
to investigate how newness as a crucial aspect of the material artefact influences users’
frames. Based on theories of resonance, we assume that this effect is mediated by
cognitive and emotional resonance. We manipulate the technical and design newness of
smart speakers to investigate our research model. Our findings contribute to research
on technology sensemaking by illuminating the role of the newness of the material
artefact. For developers, our results indicate how users’ understanding can be shaped
by embodying familiar and non-familiar cues in digital innovations.
Keywords: Sensemaking, technological frames, resonance, material artefact, digital innovations
Introduction
A social construction perspective on technology implies that technological artefacts are characterized by
interpretative flexibility in terms of how individuals make sense of a new technology (Rindova and
Petkova 2007). Technologies can be interpreted differently, depending on, e.g., users’ hopes and anxieties
(Prasad 1993). For companies developing innovations, this makes it difficult to anticipate the meaning
users ascribe these innovations and to predict their success (Mesgari and Okoli 2018). Consequently, it is
of paramount importance to better understand how individuals make sense of new technologies.
While there is a large body of research on technology sensemaking and related topics, most studies focus
on social and cognitive explanations and neglect the role of the material artefact (Mesgari and Okoli
2018). They concentrate on the meaning invented in the human mind guided by social interactions, but
do not grasp how users’ understanding of a technology is influenced by the meaning embedded in the
material artefact. Yet, this meaning is highly relevant, as the newness of an artefact demonstrates.
Literature shows that technical newness and design newness of the material artefact impact how users
perceive a technology (e.g. Mugge and Dahl 2013). For example, the design of the TiVo digital video
recorder reminded users of the well-known VCR and thus enabled them to quickly understand the value
of the new technology (Hargadon and Douglas 2001). However, the high visual similarity to the VCR
dampened users’ emotional excitement about the technology (Rindova and Petkova 2007).
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 2
This example shows that the artefact and especially its newness have a crucial role in sensemaking. To
better understand this role, we investigate newness as a characteristic of the material artefact and its
effect on sensemaking. Based on theories of resonance (Giorgi 2017), i.e. explanations of how users
connect to an object, we postulate that this effect is mediated through cognitive and emotional resonance
towards the material artefact. Cognitive resonance refers to a technology’s compatibility with users’ values
and experiences. Emotional resonance focuses on users’ emotional attachment to a technology (Giorgi
2017). The outcome of the sensemaking process can be assessed through technological frames, i.e. users’
mental models of a technology (Orlikowski and Gash 1994).
To sum up, our aim is to show how the newness of the material artefact influences user’s emotional and
cognitive resonance, which in turn affect how users make sense of the artefact, captured through users’
technological frames. Our first research question refers to the impact of the material artefact and users’
cognitive and emotional resonance (e.g. Giorgi 2017), while our second research question refers to the
effect of cognitive and emotional resonance on technological frames (e.g. Orlikowski and Gash 1994).
RQ1: How does the newness of the material artefact influence users’ cognitive and emotional resonance?
RQ2: How does cognitive and emotional resonance influence users’ technological frames?
To examine these questions, we investigate how users make sense of smart speakers. With their
revolutionary voice-based control and the fast introduction of new designs, most recently the addition of
touchscreens, smart speakers represent an interesting object of investigation. This is especially true
because the idea of smart speakers raises conflicting opinions about the potential benefits and threats of
the technology (Kowalczuk 2018) and, thus, the technological frames users have about the technology.
In an experiment we manipulate the technical newness and the design newness of a smart speaker and
investigate how this affects participants’ sensemaking processes. We focus on initial sensemaking, i.e.
users’ early exposure to a technology, as sensemaking at this stage is particularly influential (Orlikowski
and Gash 1994; Mesgari and Okoli 2018). The findings of our study extend literature on sensemaking and
technological frames by emphasizing the role of the material artefact and its effect in sensemaking. We
especially show that individuals make sense of digital innovations through intertwined cognitive and
emotional processes. These findings are also relevant for IS research streams that deal with technological
frames, new product development, resonance, and framing effectiveness. Furthermore, our findings have
important implications for technology developers regarding the development of digital innovations to
elicit cognitive and emotional resonance to positively influence users’ technological frames.
Theoretical Background
Sensemaking and technological frames
Sensemaking can be defined as the “processes of meaning construction whereby people interpret events
and issues […] that are somehow surprising, complex, or confusing to them” (Cornelissen 2012, p. 118).
Technology sensemaking focuses on the process through which individuals and groups form
understandings of a new technology and attach an appropriate meaning to it (Mesgari and Okoli 2018).
This includes forming assumptions, expectations, and knowledge of an information system which then
serve as a basis for interacting with the system (Orlikowski and Gash 1994).
Cognitive research on technology sensemaking states that sensemaking is implicitly guided by mental
models, which comprise individuals’ understandings and interpretations of a technology. Orlikowski and
Gash (1994) refer to those mental models as technological frames, which encompass assumptions,
expectations, and knowledge about a technology. Consequently, technologies are equivocal and can be
interpreted in many ways (Weick 1990). Different people can have different technological frames,
reflecting these peoples’ hopes, anxieties, dreams, and deficiencies (Prasad 1993). When members of a
group have similar frames, we speak of congruent frames, while differences in frames are addressed as
incongruent frames (Orlikowski and Gash 1994). The latter occur when technology users have different
understandings of the same system. Different technological frames lead to diverging attitudes towards a
technology and differences in whether users accept or reject the technology (Savoli and Barki 2013).
Several studies on technology sensemaking show that users hold either benefit frames of a technology,
emphasizing the possible gains associated with the technology, or threat frames, focusing on possible
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 3
negative implications of the technology (Mishra and Agarwal 2010). Thus, we refer to technological
frames as mental models of a technology, encompassing the perceived benefits as well as the perceived
threats of a technology. For example, Treem et al. (2015) identified employees’ conflicting understandings
of an enterprise social media system. While some employees focused on benefits and saw the system as an
opportunity, e.g., to facilitate knowledge sharing, other employees emphasised negative aspects, which
lead them to perceive the system as a threat that distracts from other tasks. Similar findings have occurred
in other contexts (e.g., Savoli and Barki 2013), also showing that users’ evaluation of the benefits and
threats associated with a technology and the resulting technological frames determine use behaviour.
Newness of the material artefact
Users’ sensemaking about a new technology is influenced by how they perceive the material artefact
(Mesgari and Okoli 2018). Materiality is defined as the fixed properties intrinsic to technological artefacts,
which comprise the physical and the digital material of a technology (Leonardi 2012). Such artefacts are
socially constructed, which suggests that there is not just one way to design a technology, but that
developers can design the artefact in different ways, depending on the meaning they want to assign the
technology (Pinch and Bijker 1984). By embodying novel technologies with specific technical and design
features, innovating firms can equip the material artefact with cues that guide users’ understanding of the
technology towards the desired outcome (Rindova and Petkova 2007). Likewise, users understand and
interpret the material artefact in multiple ways (Pinch and Bijker 1984). When individuals are confronted
with a new technology for the first time, they seek analogies to existing products to reduce the uncertainty
associated with the new technology and to assess its value (Rindova and Petkova 2007). By transferring
knowledge from a familiar product category to the new one, individuals try to understand and interpret
the novel technology through drawing on familiar mental schemas. These guide users’ perception of cues
embedded in the material artefact (Rindova and Petkova 2007).
Consequently, technology developers can reduce a technology’s interpretative flexibility by incorporating
familiar stimuli in the material artefact (Rindova and Petkova 2007) and determine how they want to
frame a technological product (Benner and Tripsas 2012). The chosen features determine the technical
newness of an innovation (Rindova and Petkova 2007). The more the technical f eatures of an innovation
differ from features of other existing products, the higher is the innovation’s degree of newness (Talke et
al. 2009). In other words, products that are characterized by a high technical newness imply a large
deviation from users’ existing mental schemas (Mugge and Dahl 2013), which is often associated with
high uncertainty (Rindova and Petkova 2007). In contrast, a technology that matches existing mental
schemas is more likely to trigger familiarity and perceived safety. Besides varying the degree of technical
newness, users’ perception of a technology can also be influenced by its design (Talke et al. 2009). The
design of a product refers to its observable exterior features including colours, materials, shapes, and
proportions that characterise its physical appearance (Rindova and Petkova 2007; Talke et al. 2009).
Similar to technological features, developers can use a product’s design to shape the perception of a
technology by providing cues that guide users’ sensemaking (Rindova and Petkova 2007). For example,
when the TiVo digital video recorder was introduced, its design provided visual cues that highlighted its
similarity with a VCR (Hargadon and Douglas 2001). Exploiting the well-established understanding of the
VCR enabled TiVo to create a quick understanding and gain rapid acceptance among potential customers
by presenting itself as an advanced generation of VCRs. Thus, the similarity of visual attributes of a
technology with other products affects how a product is categorized and understood (Mugge and Dahl
2013). The degree to which a product’s visual appearance matches that of other products in its category
determines the design newness of a technology (Talke et al. 2009). The less visual features a product
shares with other competing products, i.e. the higher its design newness, the more it is perceived as
atypical and unfamiliar (Mugge and Dahl 2013).
Cognitive and emotional resonance
In the context of influencing the sensemaking process, framing can be seen as a tool for shaping others’
understandings by directing their attention through inclusion and exclusion of certain information (Giorgi
2017). In order to determine the success of the framing effort in achieving a certain outcome, scholars
propose the concept of resonance (Snow et al. 1986). Giorgi (2017) defines resonance as “an audience’s
experienced personal connection with a frame” (p. 716). Two main pathways determine framing
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 4
effectiveness: the personal connection with the audience can be experienced at the cognitive level, as an
alignment with the audience’s beliefs and values, or at the emotional level, as an alignment with the
audience’s feelings and desires (Giorgi 2017). Therefore, eliciting resonance can be seen as a tool for
generating support for a new technology through either an appeal to users’ cognition or emotions.
The first pathway for achieving resonance is through an appeal to the audience’s cognition. In other
words, a framing effort is successful when it is perceived as compatible with the understandings and
beliefs that are central to the target audience (Giorgi 2017). The framing literature stresses the importance
of addressing individuals’ experiences and most salient values to convince them to support an idea (Snow
et al. 1986). If an individual perceives an innovation as compatible with his or her past experiences and
existing values, uncertainty can be reduced by evoking a sense of familiarity (Rogers 1995). Scholars
differentiate between compatibility with prior experiences and compatibility with values (Tornatzky and
Klein 1982). First, as individuals use previously introduced ideas as mental tools to ascribe a meaning to
new ideas, an innovations’ compatibility with prior experiences is crucial for its success (Rogers 1995). A
famous example of an innovation that resonated with the general public because of its compatibility with
previous experiences is Edison's electric lighting, which established a sense of familiarity through its
similarity with the well-known gas lighting (Hargadon and Douglas 2001). Second, new ideas should align
with individuals’ values (Rogers 1995). An example of an innovation which failed to resonate with the
values of its time is the Audi A2. When the Audi A2 was introduced in 2000, its advanced, lightweight
body structure couldn’t convince potential customers because it was “too early” to build a car around
values such as sustainability and environmental consciousness. To sum up, we refer to cognitive
resonance as achieving compatibility with both users’ prior experiences as well as their values.
The second pathway to resonance is by evoking an emotional reaction. Organizational and management
literature suggests that emotions have a strong influence on sensemaking. Therefore, emotional arousal
can serve as a powerful tool to guide sensemaking and support the development of strong beliefs (Weick
et al. 2005). Giorgi (2017) argues that the main mechanism for achieving emotional resonance is
identification. In other words, if an individual identifies with a product, i.e. her individual beliefs about
the product become self-defining, this identification triggers emotional attachment. Emotions can thus
influence the sensemaking process through entangling a product with individuals’ identity and thereby
influence their behaviour through evoking passionate identification (Giorgi 2017). Therefore, emotional
resonance can be used as a powerful tool for differentiating from competitors by enhancing customers’
emotional attachment to products and ideas (Giorgi 2017). A popular example of a company that sets
itself apart from its competitors by encouraging emotional attachment to its products and ideas is Apple.
When presenting new products, Apple always embraces passion and emphasizes how the new product will
change customers’ lives (Gallo 2010). As a consequence, Apple has succeeded in creating passionate
identification with its products, both within and outside organizational boundaries (Giorgi 2017). In
summary, we define emotional resonance as users’ emotional attachment to an innovation, which
encompasses feelings of passion, referring to intense and aroused positive feelings, as well as feelings of
connection with the innovation (Thomson et al. 2005).
In conclusion, framing effectiveness can be achieved through cognitive resonance based on compatibility
with the target audiences’ values and experiences as well as through emotional resonance based on
identification with the audiences’ feelings and desires. But cognition and emotion should not only be seen
as mutually exclusive ways to achieve resonance. Often, they are deeply intertwined in shaping the
meaning the audience ascribes to a particular product (Giorgi 2017).
Hypotheses
Our research model (see Figure 1) depicts how users’ sensemaking of a technological artefact is influenced
by emotional and cognitive resonance. In the first part, we investigate how the newness of the material
artefact influences users’ cognitive and emotional resonance. In the second part, we examine the influence
of cognitive and emotional resonance on users’ technological frames.
Individuals’ perception of novel technologies is based on cognitive and emotional evaluations of the
artefact. This assumption of a “holistic, cognitive-emotional nature of perception” (Rindova and Petkova
2007, p. 227) is grounded in Piaget’s theory of schemas. Piaget and Cook (1952) refer to schemas as
mental structures that help to understand the world based on existing knowledge. Through their mental
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 5
schemas, individuals compare new situations with their knowledge about past experiences. Congruity
triggers cognitive evaluation and incongruity evokes emotional evaluation (Mandler 1981). Accordingly,
we argue that users’ sensemaking about technologies depends on (in)congruity with existing mental
schemas, i.e. the perceived newness, which affects the cognitive and emotional evaluation of a technology.
Figure 1. Research Model
In the case of congruity, i.e. the novel situation is similar to an existing schema, no important changes in
mental schemas are necessary, and the situation is evaluated positively due to experienced familiarity
(Mandler 1981). If a technology is characterized by low newness, users can apply analogical reasoning and
transfer knowledge from mental schemas of familiar products to the new technology (Rindova and
Petkova 2007). Therefore, they might experience high compatibility with their values and experiences. In
contrast, products that are characterized by high technical newness, i.e. substantial changes in technology
features, imply a large deviation from users’ existing schemas (Mugge and Dahl 2013). Because of the
incongruity with existing schemas, users are not able to apply analogical reasoning to make sense of the
new technology features (Rindova and Petkova 2007). Therefore, we argue that technical newness
negatively influences cognitive resonance, i.e. the compatibility with users’ values and prior experiences.
H1a: Technical newness of the material artefact negatively influences cognitive resonance.
Besides low technical newness, another way to elicit cognitive resonance is by providing visual cues that
facilitate the sensemaking process through activating available schemas (Rindova and Petkova 2007). By
embodying technologies in familiar forms that resemble existing products, designers can support users by
transferring knowledge from available schemas to the new technology (Rindova and Petkova 2007). The
example of Edison’s electric lighting shows that high visual similarity with the well-known gas lighting
positively affected its compatibility with prior experiences (Hargadon and Douglas 2001). Consequently,
we suggest that high design newness of the material artefact decreases users’ cognitive resonance.
H1b: Design newness of the material artefact negatively influences cognitive resonance.
In the case of incongruity, i.e. a novel situation does not fit existing schemas, a modification of schemas is
necessary, and this interruption of expectations evokes emotional arousal, also referred to as passionate
emotional evaluation (Mandler 1981). Likewise, Rindova and Petkova (2007) suggest that perception of
novelty elicits emotional reactions. A low newness, on the other hand, might decrease users’ emotional
excitement (Rindova and Petkova 2007). Furthermore, as radical innovations, i.e. technologies with high
technical newness, are characterized by improving the fulfilment of customer needs (Chandy and Tellis
1998), Chaudhuri et al. (2010) suggest that radical innovations elicit positive emotions by evoking positive
disconfirmation with available schemes. In a study they show that radical innovations evoke arousal,
whereby the positive emotions associated with the innovation outweigh the negative emotions. Thus, we
hypothesize that technical newness of the material artefact has a positive effect on emotional resonance.
H2a: Technical newness of the material artefact positively influences emotional resonance.
In addition, technologies with high design newness evoke emotional excitement. Yalch and Brunel (1996)
show that a unique product design elicits psychological arousal and enables users to enhance their self-
identity by expressing their “sophisticated” taste. For example, when Apple’s iMac was introduced, its
innovative design expressed a distinctive personality and thus evoked emotional excitement among the
general public (Barlow and Maul 2000). By contrast, the TiVo digital recorder, which was designed to
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 6
visually resemble the VCR, failed to evoke emotional excitement due to its high visual similarity with
existing mental schemas (Rindova and Petkova 2007). Following these insights, we hypothesize that
design newness of the material artefact positively influences emotional resonance.
H2b: Design newness of the material artefact positively influences emotional resonance.
Giorgi (2017) suggests that cognitive resonance, i.e. compatibility with experiences and values, encourages
individuals to positively evaluate ideas and products. A tendency to positively evaluate the familiar is also
demonstrated by the exposure effect (Zajonc 1968), which states that “mere repeated exposure of an
individual to a stimulus object enhances his attitude toward it” (p. 23). In other words, the exposure effect
indicates that repeated exposure to a stimulus increases the probability of positively evaluating this
stimulus. The example of Edison’s electric lightning also shows that familiarity resulting from high
compatibility with experiences enables users to quickly understand the benefits of a technology and elicits
a positive evaluation (Hargadon and Douglas 2001). Thus, we suggest that users are more likely to
develop benefit frames of a new technology when it is compatible with their prior experiences and values.
H3a: Cognitive resonance positively influences benefit frame.
Unfamiliar situations with low compatibility, on the other hand, elicit rather negative evaluations because
they are associated with uncertainty and conflict (Zajonc 1968). Similarly, Mugge and Dahl (2013) argue
that low compatibility entails great uncertainty as the limited knowledge transfer from existing schemas
makes it more difficult to make effective use of the technology and detect its benefits. Consequently, we
suggest that low compatibility with users’ prior experiences and values increases the threats associated
with the technology, while high compatibility decreases users’ threat frames.
H3b: Cognitive resonance negatively influences threat frame.
Besides cognitive resonance, Rindova and Petkova (2007) suggest that users’ perception of the potential
value of an innovation is influenced by their emotional response towards the product, i.e. by intense and
aroused positive feelings as well as feelings of connection with the innovation. Likewise, Giorgi (2017)
states that individuals positively evaluate a product when they feel emotionally attached to it. This
positive relationship between emotional resonance and evaluation of a product can be explained by the
affect-as-information theory (Schwarz and Clore 1983). It states that people often ask themselves “How
do I feel about it?” when making judgements. Therefore, emotional reactions serve as important
information when making evaluative judgements (Schwarz 1988). Positive feelings associated with the
object of evaluation generally lead to positive judgements (Storbeck and Clore 2008). Thus, we
hypothesize that emotional resonance positively influences users’ benefit frames.
H4a: Emotional resonance positively influences benefit frame.
Furthermore, we suggest that emotional resonance reduces users’ threat frames. By investigating the
undoing effect of positive emotions, Fredrickson et al. (2000) show that positive emotions help
individuals to manage threating situations and reduce anxiety. When people have intense and aroused
positive emotions and feel a connection to a product, it is unlikely that they put emphasis on threats.
Instead, even positive illusions can occur, leading to distortions of negative feelings in favour of positive
ones (Biggane et al. 2016). Therefore, we suggest that positive emotions decrease the threats associated
with a new technology.
H4b: Emotional resonance negatively influences threat frame.
Taken together, these hypotheses indicate that cognitive and emotional resonance help to positively shape
users’ technological frames, as both enhance benefit frames and reduce threat frames. However, the
material artefact has a controversial role: On the one hand, its newness decreases cognitive resonance, on
the other hand, this newness increases emotional resonance. This highlights that the meaning embedded
in the material artefact is indeed crucial to understand sensemaking. Our results will show which kind of
resonance overweighs the other, allowing for interesting insights as well for academics as practitioners.
Method
To test the hypotheses, we conduct a quantitative experiment investigating how individuals make sense of
smart speakers. Such speakers can play music similar to conventional loudspeakers but are digitally
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 7
connected to allow for added functionality. In advanced forms, they react to users’ voice commands and
have a camera for video calls as well as a touchscreen to display content. With a current market diffusion
of less than 25% of households even in technologically advanced countries like the US (Kinsella 2019),
smart speakers are sufficiently new to provide meaningful results.
We conduct an experiment with at least 120 participants in a 2 × 2 full factorial design using all four
combinations of the two independent variables: (1) technical newness and (2) design newness. Low design
newness refers to smart speakers that resemble smartphones that stand upright, such as the Amazon
Echo Show. High design newness refers to smart speakers with unusual appearance, such as the Amazon
Echo Spot. In the low technical newness condition, participants receive one of these devices without voice
and video call functionality, i.e. they can use the smart speaker similar to a smartphone, but with
restricted capabilities. In the high technical newness condition, both features are available, i.e. interaction
through voice commands and video calls are possible. Participants get one of these devices for home use
and have to fill out a questionnaire after the initial sensemaking period is over.
Figure 2. Experimental Design (© Amazon.com, Inc.)
To verify whether these stimuli are perceived as intended we conduct a pretest measuring design newness
and technical newness. For measuring design newness, a scale from Mugge and Dahl (2013) is adapted
and anchored by “old/novel,” “not original/original,” and “not (as) innovative/ innovative”. For assessing
technical newness, also a scale from Mugge and Dahl (2013) is used. In the actual experiment,
participants are asked to evaluate the treatment stimulus through several multi-item measures. Cognitive
resonance is assessed using a scale adapted from Karahanna et al. (2006) that encompasses compatibility
with prior experiences and compatibility with values. To assess emotional resonance, we cover feelings of
passion towards the technology as well as feelings of connection by adapting a scale of Thomson et al.
(2005), which covers both connection as well as passion towards the technology. Finally, users’
technological frames are assessed through benefit frame and threat frame. To measure the benefit frame,
we adapt the relative-advantage scale from Moore and Benbasat (1991) as the relative advantage of an
innovation refers to its benefits compared to previous technologies. The threat frame is assessed using a
scale adapted from Peacock and Wong (1990) anchored by “threating situation”, “feel anxious”, “negative
outcome”, and “negative impact”. As control variables, we use different personality traits, because risk-
averse or conservative participants could react substantially different from innovative participants;
previous experience with different kinds of smart speakers, because this might influence the level of
newness participants perceive; previous negative or positive experiences with similar artefacts, because
especially negative experiences related to artefacts with a small level of newness have the potential to
affect results; and aesthetic appeal of the design, as this could affect results besides design newness.
The subsequent data analysis is performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 23 to evaluate component structure
and to conduct a between-subject analysis via ANOVA. Relationships in the model are further investigated
using partial least squares structural equation modelling with SmartPLS 3, also employing multi-group
analyses to compare path coefficients (Ringle et al. 2015).
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 8
Outlook and Implications
The findings of our study will provide important implications. First, they extend existing literature on
technological frames by investigating how the material artefact influences individuals’ sensemaking
process. According to our model, this influence differs depending on whether individuals’ respond
cognitively or emotionally to the artefact’s newness. Second, our findings contribute to existing
technology sensemaking literature by examining the previously mainly qualitatively explained genesis of
technological frames in a quantitative experiment, thus providing generalizable evidence on the influence
of the material artefact as well as on the influence of cognitive and emotional resonance. Third, our
findings provide practical implications for technology developers on how to design a technology to elicit
cognitive and emotional resonance and thus positively influence users’ technological frames.
References
Barlow, J., and Maul, D. 2000. Emotional Value: Creating Strong Bonds with Your Customers. Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Benner, M. J., and Tripsas, M. 2012. "The Influence of Prior Industry Affiliation on Framing in Nascent
Industries: The Evolution of Digital Cameras," Strategic Management Journal (33:3), pp. 277-302.
Biggane, J. E., Allen, D. G., and Albert, L. S. 2016. "The Role of Positive Illusions in Employment
Relationships," Human Resource Management Review (26:3), pp. 270-281.
Chandy, R. K., and Tellis, G. J. 1998. "Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of
Willingness to Cannibalize," Journal of Marketing Research (35:4), pp. 474-487.
Chaudhuri, A., Aboulnasr, K., and Ligas, M. 2010. "Emotional Responses on Initial Exposure to a Hedonic
or Utilitarian Description of a Radical Innovation," Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice (18:4),
pp. 339-359.
Cornelissen, J. P. 2012. "Sensemaking under Pressure: The Influence of Professional Roles and Social
Accountability on the Creation of Sense," Organization Science (23:1), pp. 118-137.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., and Tugade, M. M. 2000. "The Undoing Effect of
Positive Emotions," Motivation and Emotion (24:4), pp. 237-258.
Gallo, C. 2010. The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs: How to Be Insanely Great in Front of Any
Audience. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.
Giorgi, S. 2017. "The Mind and Heart of Resonance: The Role of Cognition and Emotions in Frame
Effectiveness," Journal of Management Studies (54:5), pp. 711-738.
Hargadon, A. B., and Douglas, Y. 2001. "When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of
the Electric Light," Administrative Science Quarterly (46:3), pp. 476-501.
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., and Angst, C. M. 2006. "Reconceptualizing Compatibility Beliefs in
Technology Acceptance Research," MIS Quarterly (30:4), pp. 781-804.
Kinsella, B. 2019. " US Smart Speaker Installed Base Reaches 76 Million According to CIRP with 52%
One-Year Growth," retrieved 5th September 2019 from https://voicebot.ai/2019/08/09/us-smart-
speaker-installed-base-reaches-76-million-according-to-cirp-with-52-one-year-growth/.
Kowalczuk, P. 2018. "Consumer Acceptance of Smart Speakers: A Mixed Methods Approach," Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing (12:4), pp. 418-431.
Leonardi, P. M. 2012. "Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-Technical Systems: What Do These Terms
Mean? How Are They Different? Do We Need Them," in Materiality and Organizing: Social
Interaction in a Technological World, P.M. Leonardi, A.N. Bonnie and K. Jannis (eds.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mandler, G. 1981. "The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste," in Affect and Cognition: 17th Annual
Carnegie Mellon Symposium on Cognition, M.S. Clark and S.T. Fiske (eds.). East Sussex: Psychology
Press.
Mesgari, M., and Okoli, C. 2018. "Critical Review of Organisation-Technology Sensemaking: Towards
Technology Materiality, Discovery, and Action," European Journal of Information Systems (28:2),
pp. 1-28.
Mishra, A. N., and Agarwal, R. 2010. "Technological Frames, Organizational Capabilities, and It Use: An
Empirical Investigation of Electronic Procurement," Information Systems Research (21:2), pp. 249-
270.
Material Artefact in Digital Innovation Sensemaking
Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019 9
Moore, G. C., and Benbasat, I. 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of
Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research (2:3), pp. 192-222.
Mugge, R., and Dahl, D. W. 2013. "Seeking the Ideal Level of Design Newness: Consumer Response to
Radical and Incremental Product Design," Journal of Product Innovation Management (30:S1), pp.
34-47.
Orlikowski, W. J., and Gash, D. C. 1994. "Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology
in Organizations," ACM Transactions on Information Systems (12:2), pp. 174-207.
Peacock, E. J., and Wong, P. T. 1990. "The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM): A Multidimensional
Approach to Cognitive Appraisal," Stress Medicine (6:3), pp. 227-236.
Piaget, J., and Cook, M. 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. International Universities Press
New York.
Pinch, T. J., and Bijker, W. E. 1984. "The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology
of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other," Social Studies of Science
(14:3), pp. 399-441.
Prasad, P. 1993. "Symbolic Processes in the Implementation of Technological Change: A Symbolic
Interactionist Study of Work Computerization," Academy of Management Journal (36:6), pp. 1400-
1429.
Rindova, V. P., and Petkova, A. P. 2007. "When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Change,
Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations," Organization Science
(18:2), pp. 217-232.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J.-M. 2015. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt, Germany: SmartPLS
GmbH.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Savoli, A., and Barki, H. 2013. "Functional Affordance Archetypes: A New Perspective for Examining the
Impact of It Use on Desirable Outcomes," Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS), Milan, Italy.
Schwarz, N. 1988. "How Do I Feel About It? The Informative Function of Mood," in Affect, Cognition and
Social Behavior, K.J. Fiedler, Forgas (ed.). Göttingen: C.J. Hogrefe.
Schwarz, N., and Clore, G. L. 1983. "Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of Well-Being: Informative
and Directive Functions of Affective States," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (45:3), p.
513.
Seligman, L. 2006. "Sensemaking Throughout Adoption and the Innovation-Decision Process," European
Journal of Innovation Management (9:1), pp. 108-120.
Snow, D. A., Rochford Jr, E. B., Worden, S. K., and Benford, R. D. 1986. "Frame Alignment Processes,
Micromobilization, and Movement Participation," American Sociological Review (51:4), pp. 464-481.
Storbeck, J., and Clore, G. L. 2008. "Affective Arousal as Information: How Affective Arousal Influences
Judgments, Learning, and Memory," Social and Personality Psychology Compass (2:5), pp. 1824-
1843.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., and Lutz, A. 2009. "What About Design Newness? Investigating the
Relevance of a Neglected Dimension of Product Innovativeness," Journal of Product Innovation
Management (26:6), pp. 601-615.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., and Park, C. W. 2005. "The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of
Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands," Journal of Consumer Psychology (15:1), pp. 77-91.
Tornatzky, L. G., and Klein, K. J. 1982. "Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-
Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
(EM-29:1), pp. 28-45.
Treem, J. W., Dailey, S. L., Pierce, C. S., and Leonardi, P. M. 2015. "Bringing Technological Frames to
Work: How Previous Experience with Social Media Shapes the Technology's Meaning in an
Organization," Journal of Communication (65:2), pp. 396-422.
Weick, K. E. 1990. "Technology as Equivoque: Sensemaking in New Technologies," in Technology and
Organizations, P.S. Goodman and L.S. Sproull (eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1-44.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., and Obstfeld, D. 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking,"
Organization Science (16:4), pp. 409-421.
Yalch, R., and Brunel, F. 1996. "Need Hierarchies in Consumer Judgments of Product Designs: Is It Time
to Reconsider Maslow's Theory?," Advances in Consumer Research (23:1), pp. 405-410.
Zajonc, R. B. 1968. "Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(9:2), pp. 1-27.
