Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Deontic technology perceptions:
a complementary view to
instrumental perspectives on
technology acceptance and use
Matthew B. Perrigino
Iona University, New Rochelle, New York, USA
Benjamin B. Dunford
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
R. Wayne Boss
Leeds School of Business Boulder, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Matt Troup
Conway Regional Medical Center, Conway, Arkansas, USA, and
David S. Boss
Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose –For decades, organizational research has primarily considered instrumental technology
perceptions (ITP) –emphasizing how technology impacts the personal interests of end users themselves –
to understand technology acceptance. The authors offer a complementary paradigm by introducing deontic
technology perceptions (DTP), defined as the degree to which individuals believe that the technology they use
is beneficial to other individuals beyond themselves (e.g. beneficial to customers).
Design/methodology/approach –The authors collected quantitative survey-based data from three
different hospitals located in the United States. On the basis of conservation of resources theory, the authors
investigated whether both DTP and ITP were associated with improved work-related well-being.
Findings –Two pilot studies (n5161 and n5311 nurses) substantiated our DTP conceptualization. Our
primary study (n5346 nurses) found support for the association between DTP and improved work-related
well-being. Evidence for the relationship between ITP and work-related well-being was mixed and the authors
did not find a statistically significant interaction between DTP and ITP.
Originality/value –The authors build on decades of research on technology acceptance by complementing it
with our deontic perspective. Our work demonstrates that technology users pay attention and react
meaningfully to how their use of technology impacts not only themselves but also external parties like patients,
customers and members of the general public.
Keywords Technology acceptance, Conservation of resources theory, Technology use, Deontic
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
For over three decades, a multidisciplinary body of research has been devoted to
understanding how end users adopt and respond to new forms of technology. A variety of
Deontic
technology
perceptions
© Matthew B. Perrigino, Benjamin B. Dunford, R. Wayne Boss, Matt Troup and David S. Boss.
Published in Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone
may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
no commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2632-279X.htm
Received 5 August 2022
Revised 4 October 2022
Accepted 8 October 2022
Journal of Humanities and Applied
Social Sciences
Emerald Publishing Limited
2632-279X
DOI 10.1108/JHASS-08-2022-0103
theoretical paradigms have been offered as attempts to explain these responses and facilitate
the adoption of new technologies (e.g. Davis, 1989;Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975;Thompson et al.,
1991) with Venkatesh et al. (2003) reviewing 32 constructs across eight existing models to
generate their Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model.
Although their resulting model explained a significant amount of variance in behavioral
intention and usage, they encouraged future research to identify additional causal
antecedents underlying the cognitive phenomena that drive user attitudes and behaviors.
Technology perceptions are shaped by a variety of factors including gender; hedonic
motivation; dispositional factors including self-efficacy, personal innovativeness and
mastery; social influence processes; and organizational training (Gefen and Straub, 1997;
O’Driscoll et al., 2010;Sykes et al., 2009;van der Heijden, 2004). These extant factors share a
common lens in that the research questions under investigation focus on how the technology
affects the personal interests of the individual user. A variety of constructs and terms have
been offered to assess this idea, including perceived usefulness, ease of use, extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation, affect toward use, social factors, facilitating conditions and
voluntariness (Davis, 1989;Davis et al., 1992;Moore and Benbasat, 1991;Thompson et al.,
1991;Venkatesh et al., 2003). In sum, the literature on technology acceptance and usage has
been dominated by an inward focus.
We seek to advance this literature in an organizational context by providing a
complementary, outward-focused perspective that addresses how users perceive that their
use of technologies at work affects others, particularly those outside the organization like
customers or the general public. We differentiate between instrumental (inward-focused) and
deontic (outward-focused) motives for human behavior and apply them to technology
acceptance. The instrumental perspective holds that behavior may be explained by self-
interested, inward-focused motives that are rooted in individuals’basic needs for control
(Folger, 2001). In contrast, the deontic perspective proposes that human behavior is driven by
individuals’desire for human dignity, morality and an inherent concern for the well-being of
others (Rupp et al., 2006). Yet with a historically predominant focus on inward-focused
motives (e.g. ease of use), we propose that the technology acceptance literature to date has not
fully explored how outward-focused perceptions impact user behavior. Applying these
concepts, we argue that a more complete understanding of technology acceptance and usage
can be developed by the study of outward-focused (deontic) technology perceptions of users.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to conceptually develop and empirically explore deontic
technology perceptions (DTP) as a complement to instrumental technology perceptions (ITP)
for understanding technology use. We define DTP as the degree to which individuals believe
that the technology they use at work is beneficial to other individuals beyond themselves and
other members within the organization. These are contrasted with ITP, which represent the
dominant paradigm and address how technology affects the users themselves. Beyond
recognizing the potential overlap (i.e. use simultaneously benefitting oneself and others), our
central thesis is that employees’underlying reasons for technology use are both inwardly and
outwardly focused. Based on conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we
anticipate that both are likely to enhance work-related well-being. Given the introductory
nature of the concept, our work concludes with a future research agenda discussed in the
context of the limitations associated with our study.
Theory and hypotheses
Instrumental technology perceptions
From a management standpoint, technology has been viewed in terms of providing utility
and practical rewards associated with efficiency through optimizing processes and
minimizing costs (c.f., Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000). Primary theoretical paradigms
JHASS
addressing technology use have taken an instrumental perspective by focusing on the
attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of the end user (i.e. the employee). The well-known
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) identified perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use as the primary determinants of whether a user would accept the technology (Davis, 1989).
The TAM-2, proposed by Venkatesh and Davis (2000), integrated social influence and
cognitive processes as predictors of user acceptance. The UTAUT suggested that
performance and effort expectancies, social influence and facilitating conditions all predict
behavioral intentions, which in turn predict use behavior (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The commonality across these models is that they all share this instrumental set of
variables addressing how the technology is beneficial or detrimental to the end user.
According to the TAM, for example, perceived usefulness is defined as “the degree to which a
person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance”and
ease of use is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system
would be free of effort”(Davis, 1989, p. 320). Semantically, these definitions make clear the
self-interested nature of the focus while neither gives regard as to how using the technology
would impact an external party beyond the user.
Social influence is “the degree to which an individual perceives that important others
believe he or she should use the new system”(Venkatesh et al.,2003,p.451).These
important others could be supervisors, leaders of the organization or champions of the
technology within the organization. Although social influence accounts for others beyond
the focal participant, it remains inwardly focused. First, social influence does not
necessarily consider influences external to the organization (e.g. customers, patients or the
general public). Second, and more importantly, social influence exerts its power from the
instrumental perspective of the focal participant. For example, if a supervisor strongly
encourages a subordinate to use a specific technology, the subordinate is likely to comply
because of the potential personal rewards that can be gained (or avoidance of punishment)
by appeasing the supervisor. This may include gaining favor with the supervisor to receive
informal benefits or more tangible rewards in the form of higher performance evaluations
or salary increases. Similarly, if coworkers discourage the use of a specific technology, a
team member is unlikely to use the technology to avoid ostracism and to remain in
favorable standing with the group.
Beyond the seminal models discussed above, numerous empirical studies have identified
many influences as barriers and facilitators of end-user perceptions and behaviors. These
include the current use of an incumbent technology system, embeddedness within one’s
social network, the compatibility of the technology, impediments created by the work
environment, the complexity of the task associated with the technology, and the interface
design (e.g. Ahuja and Thatcher, 2005;Bhattacherjee and Sanford, 2006;Kamis et al., 2008;
Karahanna et al., 2006;Polites and Karahanna, 2012;Sykes et al., 2009). Like perceived
usefulness, ease of use and social influence –and the remaining 32 constructs reviewed by
Venkatesh et al. (2003) –these all retain an internal focus.
Deontic technology perceptions
Despite the evident absence of a deontic perspective of technology acceptance and use in the
management literature, overlapping models and theory from the consumer-focused literature
lends some support for this notion. The UTAUT-2 emerged from the UTAUT and was
developed to apply to the consumer context (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Additional constructs
have been considered in the consumer realm –including intrinsic and pleasurable rewards
(i.e. hedonism), price value and habit (van der Heijden, 2004)–which also hold an
instrumental focus. However, we identified three studies that began to consider a deontic
perspective.
Deontic
technology
perceptions
First, a study from the tourism management industry found that travelers may be willing
to use social media to post about their vacations as an effort to better inform other future
travelers about their experiences (Munar and Jacobsen, 2014). Second, Joo and Lee (2014)
examined the benefits of eco-driving (self-benefit versus benefits to the environment) by
using an experimental design to test how drivers’affective states interacted with the message
(egoistic versus altruistic) received from the in-vehicle voice technology. Although they
anticipated a deontic-based finding in that the usage of a car’s eco-friendly features could be
perceived as beneficial to the environment when drivers felt more altruistic, they did not
obtain empirical support for this assertion. Third, Salome et al. (2013) provide evidence for the
deontic-based perspective in finding that entrepreneurs involved in creating artificial settings
for lifestyle sports not only focus on integrating technology to allow their operation to run
effectively (instrumental) but also aim to remain environmentally friendly. Taken together,
the consumer literature provides a small modicum of evidence that a deontic perspective
exists in terms of consumer acceptance and use of technology. In other words, vacationers,
drivers and entrepreneurs consider how the technology they are using benefits external
referents (e.g. other vacationers and the environment).
Yet despite the noted overlap between TAMs in the management and consumer literature
(e.g. UTAUT and UTAUT-2), there is still a limited connection as to how DTP exists in the
workplace. Within the management literature, studies focusing on justice and fairness bring
attention to the deontic perspective. In this context, a critical element of this view “is that the
recipient or target of the justice is external to the organization, distinct from the observers
themselves or other parties (like coworkers) inside the organization”(Dunford et al., 2015,
p. 323). Marketing strategies and signals that organizations offer to the public and other
external parties –in addition to the ways in which these individuals and entities are treated
by the organization and its stakeholders –help shape employees’perceptions and attitudes
about their organization, in addition to their subsequent behaviors (Hansen et al., 2011;Rupp,
2011). Additionally, deontic models of justice argue that employees have felt a moral
obligation or responsibility in responding to perceived injustice and mistreatment, whether it
is toward them or toward another party (Rupp et al., 2013;Skarlicki and Kulik, 2004).
Merging this perspective with our discussion above regarding technology acceptance and
use, we argue that this deontic perspective for technology acceptance and use exists within
organizational settings. In these scenarios, the recipient or target of the technology is external
to the organization, distinct from the users themselves or other users (like coworkers) internal
to the organization. We refer to this as DTP, defined as the degree to which individuals
believe that the technology they use at work is beneficial to other individuals beyond
themselves and other members within the organization. In contrast, we argue that ITP are
distinct and defined as the degree to which individuals believe that the technology they use at
work affects or benefits the users themselves. Because we recognize potential overlap –that
is, technology use at work can benefit both the individual user and an external party
simultaneously –we present this conceptualization in Figure 1 in the form of a Venn diagram.
Since our study is based on a sample of nurses, we also provide relevant examples in Figure 1
specific to the healthcare context.
Study hypotheses
We integrate COR theory to develop our study hypotheses and investigate how ITP and DTP
function in work-related settings. COR states that individuals are more likely to respond to
stressful situations in a healthier and more productive manner when they possess “resources”
(Hobfoll, 1989). Resources span a broad range of categories but –relevant to the purpose
of our work –can refer to personal characteristics including positive attitudes and
beliefs (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Thus, DTP and ITP –that is, positive attitudes about
JHASS
technology –can function as personal resources at work. With the accumulation of
three decades worth of research on COR theory, a widely replicated finding is the presence of
gain spirals –aptly named where “initial resource gain begets future gain”(Chen et al., 2015,
p. 97). For example, the presence of personal resources enhances subsequent work engagement
(Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) while job resources enhance flow at work (M€
akikangas et al.,2010).
Moreover, perceived social support and trust among coworkers lead to increased citizenship
behaviors directed toward those same individuals (Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2015).
In line with COR and the notion of gain spirals, we anticipate that DTP and ITP will be
positively associated with work-related well-being. Work-related well-being generally refers
to a combination of positive (e.g. job satisfaction) and reduced negative (e.g. burnout)
attitudinal and mental health states (Inceoglu et al., 2018;Montano et al., 2017;Ryff, 2019;
Wiklund et al., 2019). Specifically, we anticipate that DTP will create a gain spiral since
helping others can be an energizing and more satisfying on-the-job experience. We also
anticipate that ITP will create a gain spiral since quicker and more efficient task completion
can also result in a satisfying on-the-job experience and conserve energy (i.e. protect
resources) that can be used for other tasks. Connecting back to our conceptualization, our
hypothesizing is consistent with the technology acceptance literature: although attitudes
toward technology may not directly influence behavioral intention (Venkatesh et al., 2003),
they are likely to exert an influence on other attitudinal outcomes. In fact, attitudinal
outcomes have “been identified as an important dependent variable, not only when the use of
the system is mandated ... but also as a general IS [information systems] success metric”
(Brown et al., 2014, p. 731). Accordingly, we suggest,
H1. (a) DTP and (b) ITP will be positively related to work-related well-being.
Again, consistent with the notion of gain spirals and because DTP and ITP represent two
distinct resources, we anticipate that the positive effects on work-related well-being will be
highest when both DTP and ITP are experienced positively (i.e. the shared conceptual space
in Figure 1). Indeed, evidence suggests that the presence of multiple resources combined can
yield more positive outcomes (van Woerkom et al., 2016). Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Figure 1.
Conceptual overview of
deontic and
instrumental
technology perceptions
Deontic
technology
perceptions
H2. The interaction between DTP and ITP will yield positive effects on work-related
well-being. Specifically, work-related well-being will be highest when both DTP and
ITP are high.
Methodology
Sample and procedure
We conducted two pilot studies to provide empirical substantiation for the DTP construct
and one primary study to test our hypotheses. For the two pilot studies, we collected data
from nurses across two hospitals in the United States. In the first study (n5161), we
conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) examining the factor loadings for the survey
items among our DTP, ITP and work-related well-being constructs. In the second study
(n5311), we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Because we consider this as
important –yet supplemental –to the investigation at hand, we summarize the two pilot
studies in Appendix.
Our primary study involved data from nurses at a different hospital facility in the United
States using a Qualtrics-based survey (n5346 nurses). Responses from the 346 nurses
came from nine different units (e.g. intensive care unit; pediatrics; outpatient) which
resulted in a nested data structure involving individual responses (Level 1) across units
(Level 2). Therefore, we applied hierarchical linear modeling to test H1 and H2.Hierarchical
linear modeling is ideal since it properly accounts for nested data when generating standard
error terms (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). Although our hypotheses are focused on the
individual level and unit-level effects or influences are beyond the scope of our
investigation, ordinary least squares regression would be inappropriate since the
generation of incorrect standard error terms (i.e. failure to account for nested data) could
lead to inaccurate results.
Across all three studies, nurses used “smart”infusion pumps (i.e. “Safe Medication
Administration through Technologies”;Dunford et al., 2017)–the focal technology under
consideration for our study –as part of their daily work activities.
Measures
Appendix provides the full set of items and stems for the DTP, ITP and work-related well-
being measures. The three constructs were scored using a 5-point Likert scale.
DTP. In the justice literature, “third party reactions can be either positive or negative
depending on the nature of external party justice (i.e. whether the organization is perceived as
fair or unfair)”(Dunford et al., 2015, p. 346). Previous research has shown that when a
transgressor is unfair to a third party, individuals may give up their own resources to rectify
the situation even when they are not the recipient of the transgression (Ellard and Skarlicki,
2002;Kray and Lind, 2002;Turillo et al., 2002). Nurses were asked to assess the degree to
which the safety features on smart pump devices assisted them in (a) setting up the correct
infusion, (b) avoiding medication errors and (c) preventing adverse drug events (patient
harm). All three items direct attention to patients (the external referent) in that the items focus
on the patients’needs and experiences while care is administered to them. Higher scores on
this scale suggested that nurses perceived the technology to be more (as opposed to less)
beneficial to patients.
ITP. We created four items asking the degree to which the focal technology –safety
features on smart pumps –(a) disrupts nurses’workflow, (b) makes it harder to work with
other systems, software or technologies, (c) makes work more stressful and (d) contributes to
an excessive workload. These four items focused specifically on how the safety features were
disruptive to nurses, with higher scores suggesting that nurses perceived the technology to be
JHASS
less (as opposed to more) beneficial to themselves. These items were then reverse-scored, with
higher measures reflecting higher ITP.
Work-related well-being. Given the stress imposed from the introduction of various
technologies, we created a four-item scale where nurses were asked the degree to which they
were (a) satisfied with their jobs, (b) often think of quitting their job, (c) fully trust their
employer and (d) feel burned out from work. The items assessing thoughts about quitting
one’s job and burnout were reverse-scored so that higher scores on this scale represented
higher levels of work-related well-being. This is consistent with previous approaches that use
a compilation of job-related attitudes to assess work-related well-being (e.g. Ryff, 2019;
Wiklund et al., 2019).
Control variables. We included age and years of experience with smart pumps as control
variables in our analyses since the technology acceptance literature suggests that both are
factors in the degree to which users are amenable to the benefits of technology (Venkatesh
et al., 2003). Because organizational experiences and one’s position in the organization can
strongly influence and shape work-related perceptions, we also included tenure (i.e. the
number of years spent working as a nurse in their current hospital) and area size (i.e. the
number of responses from each unit within the organization) as control variables (Perrigino
et al., 2021).
Finally, we included available job resources as a control variable based on COR theory.
COR proposes that organizations may provide “resource caravans”–that is, resources
that are shared among and available across employees (Hobfoll, 2011). Since we reasoned
that the presence of other job resources likely affects work-related well-being, we
included this as a control to assess the effects of DTP and ITP more rigorously. We
created a two-item measure to assess resources using the items “I have sufficient access to
resources for troubleshooting smart pump related problems”and “I have adequate
opportunities for giving feedback regarding smart pumps”. Higher scores reflected
stronger individual perceptions that additional technology-related job resources were
available.
Results
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations of the
variables. All scale variables demonstrated sufficient reliability (
α
> 0.70). Closer
inspection of Table 1 reveals preliminary support for first hypothesis, which stated that
DTP (H1a;r50.18, p< 0.01) and ITP (H1b;r50.13, p< 0.05) would be positively
associated with work-related well-being. We also note that our CFA results offer similar
support (Appendix).
MSD12345678
1. Area size 38.44 43.66 –
2. Age 36.81 11.86 0.06 –
3. Experience 10.79 10.36 0.15** 0.89** –
4. Tenure 7.81 8.09 0.03 0.69** 0.79** –
5. Resources 3.09 0.88 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.04 (0.75)
6. ITP 4.17 0.67 0.05 0.19** 0.24** 0.20** 0.17** (0.90)
7. DTP 3.56 0.80 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.22** 0.31** (0.84)
8. WRWB 3.69 0.69 0.12
*
0.04 0.01 0.00 0.32** 0.13* 0.18** (0.73)
Note(s): **p< 0.01; *p< 0.05; reliabilities (
α
) are displayed in parentheses along the diagonal; ITP 5
Instrumental Technology Perceptions; DTP 5Deontic Technology Perceptions; WRWB 5Work-Related
Well-Being; n5346
Table 1.
Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities
and correlations
Deontic
technology
perceptions
We used hierarchical linear modeling to more rigorously assess H1 and H2 and present
these results in Table 2. Model 1 presents the null model which indicates –based on the
ICC(1) value –that only around 5% of the explainable variance in work-related well-being is
due to the nested data. Model 2 presents the control variable-only model. Consistent with
our supposition that other work-related resources might improve work-related well-being,
our resources variable was statistically significant (B50.24, p<0.001).Agewas
marginally significant (B50.01, p< 0.10), indicating a trend toward older nurses
experiencing lower work-related well-being compared to younger nurses. Notably, the
reduced 2 Log Likelihood, AIC and BIC information criteria indicated that this model was
a better fit compared to the null model (which was also confirmed through a Chi-square
difference test).
Model 3 includes DTP and ITP as predictors. Consistent with H1a, DTP was positively
associated with work-related well-being (B50.10, p< 0.05). However, H1b was not supported
since the positive association between ITP and work-related well-being did not reach
statistical significance (B50.04, p> 0.05). Interestingly, the information criteria suggested
that the previous model was a better fit to the data compared to this model even though DTP
was a statistically significant predictor. As indicated by the ΔR
2
statistic, the inclusion of the
DTP and ITP predictors explained an additional 2% of variance in work-related well-being
with the R
2
statistic increasing from 0.10 to 0.12 (p< 0.10).
Finally, we included an interaction term (ITP*DTP) in Model 4 to assess H2 and
determine whether a gain spiral was present (i.e. more positive work-related well-being
when both ITP and DTP are higher). This hypothesis was not supported, as (1) the
interaction term was not statistically significant, and (2) the information criteria indicated
that the data was a worse fit for this model. For parsimony, we do not include Model 4
results in Table 2.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
BSE pBSE pBSE p
Fixed effects
Intercept 3.72 0.07 *** 3.36 0.23 *** 2.92 0.32 ***
Area size 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Age 0.01 0.01
t
0.01 0.01
t
Experience 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Tenure 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Resources 0.24 0.04 *** 0.22 0.04 ***
ITP 0.04 0.06
DTP 0.10 0.05 *
Random effects
Residual 0.46 0.04 *** 0.40 0.03 *** 0.39 0.03 ***
Intercept 0.02 0.02 ** 0.02 0.02 ** 0.02 0.02
ICC(1) 0.05 0.04 0.05
Information criteria
2 Log Likelihood 718.85 673.06 675.37
Δ
χ
2
45.79 *** 2.31
AIC 722.85 677.06 679.37
BIC 730.53 684.61 686.90
R
2
0.11 0.12
t
ΔR
2
0 0.02
Note(s): ***p< 0.001; **p< 0.01; *p< 0.05; p< 0.10; ITP 5Instrumental Technology Perceptions;
DTP 5Deontic Technology Perceptions; Outcome 5Work-related well-being; n5346
Table 2.
Multilevel model
hypothesis testing
JHASS
Discussion
Our primary objective was to introduce DTP, focusing on how technology users perceive
technology to be beneficial (or detrimental) to others beyond themselves and other members
within the organization. In line with this objective, we not only distinguished DTP from ITP but
also found evidence that DTP was positively associated with work-related well-being. Below we
discuss the strengths, limitations and implications for research that stem from these findings.
Theoretical implications
Our study makes several important theoretical contributions to the literature. First, our study
suggests that employees pay attention to and react meaningfully to perceptions of how others
are influenced by information technologies. This is a significant addition to the dominant
paradigm in the technology acceptance literature which focuses on perceptions of how users
themselves are influenced by technology. We argue that accounting for both instrumental and
deontic perspectives is necessary for a more complete understanding of technology acceptance
and problem-solving, with a focus on both first-person and third-party perceptions.
Second, our study contributes to the development of future theory by offering insights for
formal measurement development-related efforts aimed at more precisely assessing both DTP
and ITP. Although our items were developed for a healthcare sample, they can be adapted to
any industry, technology or target, including situations where researchers would like to
understand how information technologies impact customers or members of the general public.
Instead of addressing smart pump safety features, items can address other technologies
relevant and specific to an organization including those related to the growing areas of cloud
computing, artificial intelligence and Big Data. Third, our study advances the literature by
exploring the connection between technology and well-being in the healthcare industry,
addressing calls for greater industry-specific management and information systems research.
Given that Chiasson and Davidson (2005) found only 5.6% of industry-specific studies in the
management and information systems literature were devoted to healthcare, we advocate for
further healthcare-focused studies adopting this technology-oriented focus.
Practical implications
In addition to theoretical implications, our study makes important practical contributions to
the literature. Organizations may benefit significantly by undertaking efforts (e.g. surveys
and interviews) to understand employees’DTP involving patients, customers and other
parties external to the organization. These initiatives may improve the likelihood that
employees will respond favorably to technologies. Organizational leaders must ensure that
users within the organization accept the technology, are trained properly, and use the
technology as intended as opposed to working around it (Dunford and Perrigino, 2018). When
considering issues of technology replacement and implementation, Chief Technology
Officers should solicit input not only from the end users but also seek feedback from the
recipients which could be through focus groups or customer satisfaction surveys. Moreover,
given how the occupational stress and well-being literature highlights how negative
perceptions of technology can lead to adverse outcomes (Day et al., 2010)–combined with our
findings that DTP is positively associated with work-related well-being –organizations must
recognize and leverage the potential benefits as to how the deontic perspective has a positive
influence on broader health and well-being (e.g. psychosomatic implications).
Limitations and future research
Our study has certain limitations that give rise to future research directions. One of the
weaknesses has to do with our sample of nurses and the fact that the sample was predominantly
Deontic
technology
perceptions
female. While this is representative of the nursing population at large, gender differences in
technology acceptance and use have long been recognized (Ahuja and Thatcher, 2005;Gefen and
Straub, 1997;Venkatesh and Morris, 2000). Moreover, employees in nursing and healthcare tend
to be more altruistic and other-oriented compared to employees in other industries (Perrigino
et al., 2020). Thus, future research should further explore DTP among more gender-balanced
samples and its prevalence across different industries. Juxtaposed with our work, studies can
attempt to replicate our findings involving technology in male-dominated industries (e.g.
engineering).
Another limitation of our study is the use of self-report data (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Considering this limitation, it is important to recognize that “perceptions about technology”is
a subjective construct. Previous arguments have been made that for such “inherently
subjective constructs ...the focal person is probably the most accurate source of information
regarding his or her desires, perceptions, and attitudes”(Rothbard et al., 2005, p. 254; see also
Perrigino and Jenkins, 2022). Because “a large proportion of information systems research is
concerned with developing and testing models pertaining to complex cognition”(Becker et al.,
2013, p. 665), future research may build on these self-report measures by exploring
multisource options, including coworker ratings as to how the focal participant views the
technology (and examining the strength of the correlations between these self- and other-
ratings). Additionally, future research may integrate DTP with multilevel perspectives at the
team level where team members may share common beliefs or “climates”related to how the
technology impacts third parties. Based on existing theory and research on emotional
contagion (Barsade, 2002;Pugh, 2001), turnover contagion (Felps et al., 2009) and burnout
contagion (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2000), “workaround contagion”effects can be explored to
determine if individuals’attitudes about how technology affects themselves and external
referents are transmittable in the sense that these attitudes aggregate to the team level.
The context of the study perhaps limits the generalizability of the findings in that the focal
technology –usage and attitudes regarding smart infusion pumps –is very specific to the
healthcare population, which is only a small subset of the working population at large.
Nonetheless, most previous studies assessing technology acceptance and use have taken a similar
empirical approach to support their overarching theoretical arguments. For example, Davis’s
(1989) seminal work focused on the usage of e-mail while van der Heijden’s (2004) influential work
on hedonic information systems assessed user reactions to a Dutch movie website. The nuanced
focus of each of these studies did not take away from advancing the field’s general understanding
of technology acceptance, use and hedonic information systems. Analogously, despite the focus
here on smart pump technology, the specific empirical focus should not detract from future studies
attempting to advance research on deontic perspectives of technology.
Finally, we encourage future research to consider both antecedents and a wider set of
outcomes. Although our study focused as much on establishing the conceptualization of DTP
as it did on its effects, there are ample opportunities to assess more nuanced outcomes. For
example, studies might consider separate effects on work-related well-being between its
hedonic (i.e. happiness and pleasure) and eudaimonic (i.e. self-realization and meaning) forms
(Ryan and Deci, 2001). Regarding antecedents, other-orientation and self-interest may be
stronger predictors of DTP and ITP, respectively (De Dreu and Nauta, 2009). These examples
are a few of the many possibilities to investigate, as our DTP and ITP constructs can be
positioned within the various TAMs that already consider many antecedents and outcomes.
Conclusion
Our work introduced DTP –the degree to which individuals believe that the technology they
use at work is beneficial to other individuals beyond themselves and other members within
the organization –and found a positive association with work-related well-being. In addition,
JHASS
we proposed an agenda for future research to further integrate the concept into the broad
knowledge base of technology acceptance and use that has been established over the last few
decades. The construct appears to hold the potential to explain additional variance in end-
user perceptions and use, above and beyond the existing instrumental perspectives that have
dominated the literature to date.
References
Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000), “Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption
and beliefs about information technology usage”,MIS Quarterly,Vol.24No.4,pp.665-694,
doi: 10.2307/3250951.
Ahuja, M.K. and Thatcher, J.B. (2005), “Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying:
effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use”,MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 427-459, doi: 10.2307/25148691.
Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2000), “Burnout contagion processes among teachers”,Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 2289-2308, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02437.x.
Barsade, S.G. (2002), “The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 644-675, doi: 10.2307/3094912.
Becker, J.M., Rai, A., Ringle, C.M. and V€
olckner, F. (2013), “Discovering unobserved heterogeneity in
structural equation models to avert validity threats”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 665-694,
available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825995
Bhattacherjee, A. and Sanford, C. (2006), “Influence processes for information technology acceptance:
an elaboration likelihood model”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 805-825, doi: 10.2307/
25148755.
Brown, S.A., Venkatesh, V. and Goyal, S. (2014), “Expectation confirmation in information systems
research: a test of six competing models”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 729-756, available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26634990
Chen, S., Westman, M. and Hobfoll, S.E. (2015), “The commerce and crossover of resources:
resource conservation in the service of resilience”,Stress and Health, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 95-105, doi: 10.1002/smi.2574.
Chiasson, M.W. and Davidson, E. (2005), “Taking industry seriously in information systems research”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 591-605, doi: 10.2307/25148701.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”,Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 1111-1132,
doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340, doi: 10.2307/249008.
Day, A., Scott, N. and Kelloway, E.K. (2010), “Information and communication technology:
implications for job stress and employee well-being”, in Perrew
e, P.L. and Ganster, D.C.
(Eds), New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress (Research in
Occupational Stress and Well Being), Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, Vol. 8, pp. 317-350,
doi: 10.1108/S1479-3555(2010)0000008011.
De Dreu, C.K. and Nauta, A. (2009), “Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior:
implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 913-926, doi: 10.1037/a0014494.
Dunford, B.B. and Perrigino, M.B. (2018), “The social construction of workarounds”, in Lewin, D. and
Gollan, P.J. (Eds), Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, 2017: Shifts in Workplace Voice,
Justice, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution in Contemporary Workplaces (Advances in Industrial
and Labor Relations), Emerald Publishing, Bingley, Vol. 24, pp. 7-28, doi: 10.1108/S0742-
618620180000024003.
Deontic
technology
perceptions
Dunford, B.B., Jackson, C.L., Boss, A.D., Tay, L. and Boss, R.W. (2015), “Be fair, your employees are
watching: a relational response model of external third-party justice”,Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 319-352, doi: 10.1111/peps.12081.
Dunford, B.B., Perrigino, M., Tucker, S.J., Gaston, C.L., Young, J., Vermace, B.J., Walroth, T.A.,
Buening, N., Skillman, K.L. and Berndt, D. (2017), “Organizational, cultural, and psychological
determinants of smart infusion pump work arounds: a study of 3 US health systems”,Journal of
Patient Safety, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 162-168, doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000137.
Ellard, J.H. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2002), “A third-party observer’s reactions to employee mistreatment:
motivational and cognitive processes in deservingness assessments”, in Gilliland, S.W., Steiner,
D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Managing Organizational Justice,
Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 133-158.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T.R., Hekman, D.R., Lee, T.W., Holtom, B.C. and Harman, W.S. (2009),
“Turnover contagion: how coworkers’job embeddedness and job search behaviors influence
quitting”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 545-561, doi: 10.5465/amj.
2009.41331075.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Folger, R. (2001), “Fairness as deonance”, in Gilliland, S.W., Steiner, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (Eds),
Research in Social Issues in Management, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, Vol. 1, pp. 3-33.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (1997), “Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an
extension to the technology acceptance model”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 389-400,
available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/249720
Halbesleben, J.R. and Wheeler, A.R. (2015), “To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust
in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior”,Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 6,
pp. 1628-1650, doi: 10.1177/01492063124552.
Halbesleben, J.R., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-Underdahl, S.C. and Westman, M. (2014), “Getting to the “COR”
understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1334-1364, doi: 10.1177/01492063145271.
Hansen, S.D., Dunford, B.B., Boss, A.D., Boss, R.W. and Angermeier, I. (2011), “Corporate social
responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: a cross-disciplinary perspective”,Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 29-45, doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0.
Hinkin, T.R. (1998), “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires”,Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 104-121, doi: 10.1177/
109442819800100106.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”,American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2011), “Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings”,Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 116-122, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8325.2010.02016.x.
Inceoglu, I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D. and Gerbasi, A. (2018), “Leadership behavior and employee
well-being: an integrated review and a future research agenda”,The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 179-202, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.006.
Joo, Y.K. and Lee, J.R. (2014), “Can ‘the voices in the car’persuade drivers to go green? Effects of benefit
appeals from in-vehicle voice agents and the role of drivers’affective states on eco-driving”,
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 255-261, doi: 10.1089/cyber.
2013.0157.
Kamis, A., Koufaris, M. and Stern, T. (2008), “Using an attribute-based decision support system for
user-customized products online: an experimental investigation”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 159-177, doi: 10.2307/25148832.
JHASS
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R. and Angst, C.M. (2006), “Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in
technology acceptance research”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 781-804, doi: 10.2307/
25148754.
Kray, L.J. and Lind, E.A. (2002), “The injustices of others: social reports and the integration of others’
experiences in organizational justice judgments”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 906-924, doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00035-3.
M€
akikangas, A., Bakker, A.B., Aunola, K. and Demerouti, E. (2010), “Job resources and flow at work:
modelling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture model methodology”,Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 795-814, doi: 10.1348/
096317909X476333.
Montano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F. and H€
uffmeier, J. (2017), “Leadership, followers’mental health and
job performance in organizations: a comprehensive meta-analysis from an occupational health
perspective”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 327-350, doi: 10.1002/
job.2124.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation”,Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 192-222, doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
Munar, A.M. and Jacobsen, J.S. (2014), “Motivations for sharing tourism experiences through
social media”,Tourism Management, Vol. 43, pp. 46-54, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.
01.012.
O’Driscoll, M.P., Brough, P., Timms, C. and Sawang, S. (2010), “Engagement with information and
communication technology and psychological well-being”, in Perrew
e, P.L. and Ganster, D.C.
(Eds), New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress (Research in
Occupational Stress and Well Being), Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, Vol. 8, pp. 269-316,
doi: 10.1108/S1479-3555(2010)0000008010.
Perrigino, M.B. and Jenkins, M. (2022), “Antecedents of facades of conformity: when can employees ‘be
themselves’?”,Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-
of-print, doi: 10.1108/JHASS-04-2022-0045.
Perrigino, M.B., Dunford, B.B., Biondich, P.G., Cullen, T. and Pratt, B.R. (2020), “Psychological
ownership in open source electronic medical records communities”,Journal of Humanities and
Applied Social Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 181-195, doi: 10.1108/JHASS-09-2019-0052.
Perrigino, M.B., Chen, H., Dunford, B.B. and Pratt, B.R. (2021), “If we see, will we agree? Unpacking the
complex relationship between stimuli and team climate strength”,Academy of Management
Annals, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 151-187, doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0077.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Polites, G.L. and Karahanna, E. (2012), “Shackled to the status quo: the inhibiting effects of incumbent
system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 21-42, doi: 10.2307/41410404.
Pugh, S.D. (2001), “Service with a smile: emotional contagion in the service encounter”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1018-1027, doi: 10.5465/3069445.
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Application and Data Analysis
Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park.
Rothbard, N.P., Phillips, K.W. and Dumas, T.L. (2005), “Managing multiple roles: work-family policies
and individuals’desires for segmentation”,Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 243-258, doi:
10.1287/orsc.1050.0124.
Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V. and Williams, C.A. (2006), “Employee reactions to corporate
social responsibility: an organizational justice framework”,Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 537-543, doi: 10.1002/job.380.
Deontic
technology
perceptions
Rupp, D.E., Shao, R., Thornton, M.A. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2013), “Applicants’and employees’
reactions to corporate social responsibility: the moderating effects of first-party justice
perceptions and moral identity”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 895-933, doi: 10.1111/
peps.12030.
Rupp, D.E. (2011), “An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility”,
Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 72-94, doi: 10.1177/2041386610376255.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2001), “On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being”,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 141-166, doi: 10.1146/
annurev.psych.52.1.141.
Ryff, C.D. (2019), “Entrepreneurship and eudaimonic well-being: five venues for new science”,Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 646-663, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.09.003.
Salome, L.R., van Bottenburg, M. and van den Heuvel, M. (2013), “‘We are as green as possible’:
environmental responsibility in commercial artificial settings for lifestyle sports”,Leisure
Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 173-190, doi: 10.1080/02614367.2011.645247.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Kulik, C.T. (2004), “Third-party reactions to employee (mis) treatment: a justice
perspective”,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 183-229, doi: 10.1016/S0191-
3085(04)26005-1.
Sykes, T.A., Venkatesh, V. and Gosain, S. (2009), “Model of acceptance with peer support: a social
network perspective to understand employees’system use”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 371-393, doi: 10.2307/20650296.
Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A. and Howell, J.M. (1991), “Personal computing: toward a conceptual
model of utilization”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 125-143, doi: 10.2307/249443.
Turillo, C.J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J.J., Umphress, E.E. and Gee, J.O. (2002), “Is virtue its own reward? Self-
sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 839-865, doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00032-8.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004), “User acceptance of hedonic information systems”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 695-704, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25148660
Van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A.B. and Nishii, L.H. (2016), “Accumulative job demands and support
for strength use: fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using conservation of
resources theory”,Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.101No.1,pp.141-150,doi:10.1037/
apl0000033.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies”,Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204, doi: 10.1287/
mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social
influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 115-139, doi: 10.2307/3250981.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478, doi: 10.2307/
30036540.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”,MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41410412
Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B., Shir, N., Foo, M.D. and Bradley, S. (2019), “Entrepreneurship and well-being:
past, present, and future”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 579-588, doi: 10.1016/
j.jbusvent.2019.01.002.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Reciprocal relationships
between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”,Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 235-244, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003.
JHASS
Appendix
Overview and summary of pilot studies
In line with our conceptualizations, we generated three items to assess DTP, four items to assess ITP and
four items to assess work-related well-being (Table A1). Our first pilot study used an EFA to make a
preliminary determination as to whether a three-factor structure was optimal for the 11 items, with each
item loading onto its anticipated factor. Our second pilot study used a more rigorous CFA to again
confirm the three-factor structure (e.g. Hinkin, 1998).
First pilot study: exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
We collected data from 161 nurses employed at a hospital located in the United States using a
Qualtrics-based survey. All three measures demonstrated good reliability (DTP,
α
50.83; ITP,
α
50.89; work-related well-being,
α
50.75). Table A2 displays the eigenvalues associated with the
EFA results. Typically, eigenvalues greater than 1.0 indicate the presence of a distinct construct or
factor. As anticipated, three of the eigenvalues were above the 1.0 threshold. Moreover, principal
components analysis using a promax rotation indicated that the respective items for DTP, ITP and
work-related well-being each loaded onto their respective factors. In other words, the three DTP items
loaded onto a single factor together, the four ITP items loaded onto a single factor together and the
four work-related well-being items loaded onto a single factor together. These results are displayed in
Table A3. Finally, the correlation matrix generated by the EFA indicated correlations of r50.40
between DTP and ITP, r50.23 between ITP and work-related well-being and r50.22 between DTP
and work-related well-being.
Deontic technology perceptions (DTP)
In most hospitals today, certain formal procedures and technologies are put in place to help nurses ...
1. Assist the nurse in setting up the correct infusion
2. Assist the nurse in avoiding medication errors
3. Assist in preventing adverse drug events (patient harm)
Instrumental technology perceptions (ITP)
Rate the following items as to the degree to which the smart pump safety procedures ...
1. Disrupt nurses’workflow (reverse-coded)
2. Make it harder to work with other systems, software or technologies (reverse-coded)
3. Make work more stressful (reverse-coded)
4. Contribute to an excessive workload (reverse-coded)
Work-related well-being
1. I am satisfied with my job
2. I often think of quitting my job (reverse-coded)
3. I fully trust my employer
4. I feel burned out from work (reverse-coded)
Note(s): All three variables were rated using a 5-point Likert scale. The DTP and ITP variable scale choices
were 1 5not at all, 2 5very little, 3 5a moderate amount, 4 5a great amount and 5 5an extensive amount.
The work-related well-being scale choices were 1 5strongly disagree, 2 5disagree, 3 5neither agree nor
disagree, 4 5agree and 5 5strongly agree
Table A1.
Items for DTP, ITP and
work-related well-
being scales
Deontic
technology
perceptions
Second pilot study: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
We collected data from 311 nurses employed at a hospital located in the United States using a Qualtrics-
based survey and a CFA with this data. The CFA allowed for a more rigorous test of assessing the
factorial validity of our three constructs and, particularly, in distinguishing between ITP and DTP.
Consistent with the first pilot study, we used the same 11 items and anticipated a three-factor structure.
Once again, all three measures demonstrated good reliability (DTP,
α
50.84; ITP,
α
50.91; work-related
well-being,
α
50.76).
We used the
χ
2
statistic, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) to assess model fit. A three-factor solution provided an
excellent fit to the data (
χ
2
[41] 548.309, p>0.05;RMSEA50.024; CFI 50.996; TLI 50.994).
A two-factor solution in which DTP and ITP loaded onto a single factor provided a poor fit to the
data (
χ
2
[43] 5345.463, p<0.001;RMSEA50.154; CFI 50.815; TLI 50.763), as did a model where
all items loaded onto a single factor (
χ
2
[44] 5629.532, p< 0.001; RMSEA 50.211; CFI 50.642;
TLI 50.552). A Chi-square difference test indicated that the three-factor solution was a better fit
to the data compared to both the two-factor solution (Δ
χ
2
5297.15, df 52, p<0.001)andaone-
factor solution (Δ
χ
2
5581.22, df 53, p< 0.001) since the statistically significant p-value indicated
that the larger (i.e. three-factor) model with fewer degrees of freedom should be retained. The
covariance between DTP and ITP was r50.50, p< 0.001, while the covariance between DTP
and work-related well-being was r50.20, p< 0.01 (providing preliminary support for H1a)and
Item
Pattern matrix component Structure matrix component
123123
DTP1 0.01 0.00 0.85 0.33 0.18 0.84
DTP2 0.06 0.00 0.86 0.41 0.20 0.89
DTP3 0.03 0.00 0.87 0.32 0.18 0.86
ITP1 0.80 0.00 0.03 0.79 0.18 0.28
ITP2 0.83 0.03 0.08 0.86 0.18 0.41
ITP3 0.92 0.01 0.01 0.92 0.23 0.36
ITP4 0.93 0.02 0.02 0.92 0.23 0.35
WRWB1 0.02 0.82 0.12 0.16 0.80 0.06
WRWB2 0.04 0.81 0.05 0.25 0.83 0.24
WRWB3 0.05 0.65 0.02 0.19 0.66 0.14
WRWB4 0.11 0.76 0.11 0.11 0.76 0.23
Note(s): DTP 5Deontic Technology Perceptions; ITP 5Instrumental Technology Perceptions; WRWB 5
Work-Related Well-Being. Numbers in italic reflect on to which of the three components each item loaded
Component
Eigenvalues Rotation sums of squared loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total
1 4.15 37.72 37.72 3.55
2 1.98 18.03 55.76 2.61
3 1.52 13.80 69.56 2.87
4 0.76 6.91 76.46
5 0.59 5.40 81.86
6 0.53 4.83 86.69
7 0.40 3.61 90.31
8 0.35 3.18 93.43
9 0.32 2.89 96.38
10 0.27 2.41 98.79
11 0.13 1.21 100.00
Table A3.
Exploratory factor
analysis –principal
components extraction
(with promax rotation)
Table A2.
Exploratory factor
analysis –total
variance explained
JHASS
the covariance between ITP and work-related well-being was r50.34, p< 0.001 (providing
preliminary support for H1b). Taken together, the two pilot studies help substantiate our
conceptualization in Figure 1 that DTP and ITP are two distinct perspectives with a smaller degree
of overlap.
Corresponding author
Matthew B. Perrigino can be contacted at: mperrigino@iona.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Deontic
technology
perceptions
