IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v27y2016i1p197-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Note—Using Expectation Disconfirmation Theory and Polynomial Modeling to Understand Trust in Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy K. Lankton

    () (Lewis College of Business, Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 25755)

  • D. Harrison McKnight

    () (Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824)

  • Ryan T. Wright

    () (Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003)

  • Jason Bennett Thatcher

    () (College of Business and Behavioral Science, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634)

Abstract

Trust in technology is an emerging research domain that examines trust in the technology artifact instead of trust in people. Although previous research finds that trust in technology can predict important outcomes, little research has examined the effect of unmet trust in technology expectations on trusting intentions. Furthermore, both trust and expectation disconfirmation theories suggest that trust disconfirmation effects may be more complex than the linear expectation disconfirmation model depicts. However, this complexity may only exist under certain contextual conditions. The current study contributes to this literature by introducing a nonlinear expectation disconfirmation theory model that extends understanding of trust-in-technology expectations and disconfirmation. Not only does the model include both technology trust expectations and technology trusting intention, it also introduces the concept of expectation maturity as a contextual factor. We collected data from three technology usage contexts that differ in expectation maturity, which we operationalize as length of the introductory period. We find that the situation, in terms of expectation maturity, consistently matters. Using polynomial regression and response surface analyses, we find that in contexts with a longer introductory period (i.e., higher expectation maturity), disconfirmation has a nonlinear relationship with trusting intention. When the introductory period is shorter (i.e., expectation maturity is lower), disconfirmation has a linear relationship with trusting intention. This unique set of empirical findings shows when it is valuable to use nonlinear modeling for understanding technology trust disconfirmation. We conclude with implications for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy K. Lankton & D. Harrison McKnight & Ryan T. Wright & Jason Bennett Thatcher, 2016. "Research Note—Using Expectation Disconfirmation Theory and Polynomial Modeling to Understand Trust in Technology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 197-213, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:197-213
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2015.0611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0611
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Harrison McKnight & Vivek Choudhury & Charles Kacmar, 2002. "Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 334-359, September.
    2. Oliver, Richard L & DeSarbo, Wayne S, 1988. "Response Determinants in Satisfaction Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 495-507, March.
    3. Adobor, Henry, 2005. "Trust as sensemaking: the microdynamics of trust in interfirm alliances," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 330-337, March.
    4. Edwards, Jeffrey R., 1994. "The Study of Congruence in Organizational Behavior Research: Critique and a Proposed Alternative," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 51-100, April.
    5. Brown, Susan A. & Venkatesh, Viswanath & Kuruzovich, Jason & Massey, Anne P., 2008. "Expectation confirmation: An examination of three competing models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 52-66, January.
    6. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Thomas R. Shaw & D. Sandy Staples, 2004. "Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 250-267, September.
    7. Chakravarty, Anindita & Liu, Yong & Mazumdar, Tridib, 2010. "The Differential Effects of Online Word-of-Mouth and Critics' Reviews on Pre-release Movie Evaluation," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 185-197.
    8. Whetten, David A., 2009. "An Examination of the Interface between Context and Theory Applied to the Study of Chinese Organizations," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 29-56, March.
    9. Eugene W. Anderson & Mary W. Sullivan, 1993. "The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 125-143.
    10. Susan A. Brown & Viswanath Venkatesh & Sandeep Goyal, 2012. "Expectation Confirmation in Technology Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 474-487, June.
    11. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    12. Weiyin Hong & Frank K. Y. Chan & James Y. L. Thong & Lewis C. Chasalow & Gurpreet Dhillon, 2014. "A Framework and Guidelines for Context-Specific Theorizing in Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 111-136, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samer Faraj & Georg von Krogh & Eric Monteiro & Karim R. Lakhani, 2016. "Special Section Introduction—Online Community as Space for Knowledge Flows," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 668-684, December.
    2. Masood Ul Hassan & Muhammad Shahid Iqbal & Ume Habibah, 2020. "Self-Service Technology Service Quality: Building Loyalty and Intention Through Technology Trust in Pakistani Service Sector," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, June.
    3. Ma, Liang & Zhang, Xin & Ding, Xiaoyan & Wang, Gaoshan, 2018. "Bike sharing and users’ subjective well-being: An empirical study in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 14-24.

    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:inm:orisre:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:197-213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matthew Walls). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.