IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v215y2025ics004016252500126x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A legitimacy-based explanation for user acceptance of controversial technologies: The case of Generative AI

Author

Listed:
  • Bunduchi, Raluca
  • Sitar-Tăut, Dan-Andrei
  • Mican, Daniel

Abstract

Controversial technologies are technologies where social concerns play a disproportionate role in shaping the public attitudes to their adoption. An example of such controversial technologies is Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), whose rapid diffusion is fuelled by expectations for significant performance improvements, while also facing concerns at individual (trust in technology), technology (accuracy and quality), and institutional (cultural, ethical and regulatory) level. Individual and technology factors are well accounted for by rational choice-based models which underpin most technology acceptance research. Such models are less suited to explore the role of institutional factors in shaping technology acceptance. Drawing from legitimacy and technology lifecycle research, we develop a legitimacy-based model of GenAI adoption which accounts for the institutional context in which technology use happens, and for technology characteristics, namely its maturity, in shaping users' acceptance. Surveying 483 information systems students who are GenAI users, we find that users' perceptions of technology uncertainty and variation positively affect their technology legitimacy evaluations and that their pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy evaluations, but not moral, affect their intention to use. We answer recent calls to examine alternative theoretical predictors of technology acceptance, and to consider the role of context in examining the acceptance of controversial technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Bunduchi, Raluca & Sitar-Tăut, Dan-Andrei & Mican, Daniel, 2025. "A legitimacy-based explanation for user acceptance of controversial technologies: The case of Generative AI," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:215:y:2025:i:c:s004016252500126x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004016252500126X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124095?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Franklin Hair & G. Tomas M. Hult & Christian M. Ringle & Marko Sarstedt & Gulliver Lux & Julien Troiville, 2022. "Modèles d'équations structurelles Partial Least Squares (PLS-SEM)," Post-Print hal-03782748, HAL.
    2. Frenken, Koen & Saviotti, Paolo P. & Trommetter, Michel, 1999. "Variety and niche creation in aircraft, helicopters, motorcycles and microcomputers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 469-488, June.
    3. Binz, Christian & Harris-Lovett, Sasha & Kiparsky, Michael & Sedlak, David L. & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "The thorny road to technology legitimation — Institutional work for potable water reuse in California," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 249-263.
    4. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    5. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    6. Marko Sarstedt & Christian M. Ringle & Joseph F. Hair, 2022. "Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling," Springer Books, in: Christian Homburg & Martin Klarmann & Arnd Vomberg (ed.), Handbook of Market Research, pages 587-632, Springer.
    7. Szopiński, Tomasz & Bachnik, Katarzyna, 2022. "Student evaluation of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    8. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    9. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    10. van Lente, Harro & Spitters, Charlotte & Peine, Alexander, 2013. "Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1615-1628.
    11. Sarstedt, Marko & Radomir, Lăcrămioara & Moisescu, Ovidiu Ioan & Ringle, Christian M., 2022. "Latent class analysis in PLS-SEM: A review and recommendations for future applications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 398-407.
    12. Matthew R O’Shaughnessy & Daniel S Schiff & Lav R Varshney & Christopher J Rozell & Mark A Davenport, 2023. "What governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 161-176.
    13. Shi, Yuwei & Herniman, John, 2023. "The role of expectation in innovation evolution: Exploring hype cycles," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Stroh, Tim & Mention, Anne-Laure & Duff, Cameron, 2023. "The impact of evolved psychological mechanisms on innovation and adoption: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    15. Kurnia, Sherah & Choudrie, Jyoti & Mahbubur, Rahim Md & Alzougool, Basil, 2015. "E-commerce technology adoption: A Malaysian grocery SME retail sector study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 1906-1918.
    16. Abadie, Amelie & Chowdhury, Soumyadeb & Mangla, Sachin Kumar, 2024. "A shared journey: Experiential perspective and empirical evidence of virtual social robot ChatGPT's priori acceptance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    17. Leong, Ching Ching & Jarvis, Darryl & Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea, 2011. "Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 128-136.
    18. Patrick Haack & Oliver Schilke & Lynne Zucker, 2021. "Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 749-781, May.
    19. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    20. Alexander Mayr & Philip Stahmann & Maximilian Nebel & Christian Janiesch, 2024. "Still doing it yourself? Investigating determinants for the adoption of intelligent process automation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 34(1), pages 1-22, December.
    21. Schneider, Nina & Rinscheid, Adrian, 2024. "The (de-)construction of technology legitimacy: Contending storylines surrounding wind energy in Austria and Switzerland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    22. Dedehayir, Ozgur & Steinert, Martin, 2016. "The hype cycle model: A review and future directions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-41.
    23. Swierstra, Tsjalling & van de Bovenkamp, Hester & Trappenburg, Margo, 2010. "Forging a fit between technology and morality: The Dutch debate on organ transplants," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 55-64.
    24. Balakrishnan, Janarthanan & Abed, Salma S. & Jones, Paul, 2022. "The role of meta-UTAUT factors, perceived anthropomorphism, perceived intelligence, and social self-efficacy in chatbot-based services?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    25. Martin Wiener & W. Alec Cram & Alexander Benlian, 2023. "Algorithmic control and gig workers: a legitimacy perspective of Uber drivers," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 485-507, May.
    26. Shmueli, Galit & Ray, Soumya & Velasquez Estrada, Juan Manuel & Chatla, Suneel Babu, 2016. "The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4552-4564.
    27. Hülter, Svenja M. & Ertel, Christian & Heidemann, Ansgar, 2024. "Exploring the individual adoption of human resource analytics: Behavioural beliefs and the role of machine learning characteristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    28. Sitar-Tăut, Dan-Andrei & Mican, Daniel & Moisescu, Ovidiu-Ioan, 2024. "To be (online) or not to be? The antecedents of online study propensity and e-learning-dependent dropout intention in higher education," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    29. Wiener, Martin & Cram, W. Alec & Benlian, Alexander, 2023. "Algorithmic control and gig workers: A legitimacy perspective of Uber drivers," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 128415, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markard, Jochen, 2020. "The life cycle of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    2. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Okoh, Marvin & Keles, Dogan, 2022. "Assessing technology legitimacy with topic models and sentiment analysis – The case of wind power in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    4. Weiss, Daniel & Nemeczek, Fabian, 2021. "A text-based monitoring tool for the legitimacy and guidance of technological innovation systems," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Kriechbaum, Michael & López Prol, Javier & Posch, Alfred, 2018. "Looking back at the future: Dynamics of collective expectations about photovoltaic technology in Germany & Spain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 76-87.
    6. Malhotra, Abhishek & Zhang, Huiting & Beuse, Martin & Schmidt, Tobias, 2021. "How do new use environments influence a technology's knowledge trajectory? A patent citation network analysis of lithium-ion battery technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    7. Sampriti Mahanty & Frank Boons & Gavin Harper, 2025. "Evolving Critical Metal Systems: Hype Cycles and Implications for Sustainable Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Alsheimer, Sven & Schnell, Tamara & Chlebna, Camilla & Rohe, Sebastian, 2025. "Competing terms for complementary concepts? Acceptance and legitimacy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    9. Arun Kumaraswamy & Raghu Garud & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, 2018. "Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1025-1042, November.
    10. Yap, Xiao-Shan & Truffer, Bernhard, 2019. "Shaping selection environments for industrial catch-up and sustainability transitions: A systemic perspective on endogenizing windows of opportunity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1030-1047.
    11. Bunduchi, Raluca & Crișan-Mitra, Cătălina & Salanță, Irina-Iulia & Crișan, Emil Lucian, 2022. "Digital product innovation approaches in entrepreneurial firms – the role of entrepreneurs’ cognitive frames," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    12. Šerić, Maja & Patrizi, Michela & Ceccotti, Federica & Vernuccio, Maria, 2024. "Resident perspectives unveiled: The role of a sustainable destination image in shaping pro-sustainable responses," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    13. Heupel, Kevin & Fonseca, Jorge Arteaga & Rutherford, Matthew & Edwards, Bryan, 2024. "Feeding the hype cycle: Entrepreneurial swagger, passion, and inflated expectations," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 39(6).
    14. Cecere, Grazia & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Battaglia, Riccardo David, 2015. "Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 162-175.
    15. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    16. White, Gareth R.T. & Samuel, Anthony, 2019. "Programmatic Advertising: Forewarning and avoiding hype-cycle failure," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 157-168.
    17. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    18. Meike Rombach & David Dean & Frank Vriesekoop & Bin Jiang & Zeyuan Zhou & Wendy Hao & Wim Koning, 2025. "Understanding factors determining Chinese consumer’s willingness to eat cultured meat, insect, and plant-based proteins," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 22(1), pages 77-109, March.
    19. Reale, Filippo, 2019. "Governing innovation systems: A Parsonian social systems perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    20. Christopher P. Holland & Anil S. Kavuri, 2025. "Insurtech strategies: a comparison of incumbent insurance firms with new entrants," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 50(1), pages 78-105, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:215:y:2025:i:c:s004016252500126x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.