Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards integrating acceptance and resistance research: evidence from a telecare case study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

There is wide agreement that acceptance and resistance are crucial factors in information system (IS) adoption. Research has yielded many theories that have focused on either acceptance or resistance, often implicitly assuming that these are opposites. This paper proposes a two-factor view on acceptance and resistance, and shows how this idea may advance our knowledge of IS adoption. In developing a user reactions framework, we take a first step towards integrating the IS literature on acceptance and on resistance. This framework distinguishes between two behavioural dimensions, namely, acceptance, ranging from high use to non-use, and a dimension that ranges from enthusiastic support to aggressive resistance. Combining the two dimensions leads to four categories of user reactions. We show the framework's usefulness by analysing data from a telecare implementation project. The findings identify ambivalent reactions. Many clients are identified as supporting but non-using, while we also find telenurses and care coordinators that show themselves to be resisting but using. These findings support the view that non-acceptance and resistance are conceptually non-equivalent. Our data suggest voluntariness as one determinant of the variation in behavioural reactions encountered. We argue that the concepts are also functionally different: IS implementers will have to adapt their strategies to the different reactions described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams JS (1963) Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (5), 422–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior (KUHI J and BECKMANN J, Eds), pp 11–39, Springer, Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow J, Bayer S and Curry R (2006) Implementing complex innovations in fluid multi-stakeholder environments: experiences of telecare. Technovation 26 (3), 396–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry A and Pinsonneault A (2005) Understanding user responses to information technology: a coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly 29 (3), 493–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry A and Pinsonneault A (2010) The other side of acceptance: studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Quarterly 34 (4), 689–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacherjee A and Hikmet N (2007) Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: a theoretical model and empirical test. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (6), 725–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boonstra A, Boddy D and Bell S (2008) Stakeholder management in IOS projects: analysis of an attempt to implement an electronic patients file. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (2), 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau MC and Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organization Science 16 (1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SA, Massey AP, Montoya-Weiss MM and Burkman JR (2002) Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems 11 (4), 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke J, Mackenzie SB and Podsakoff PM (2003) A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A and Gallivan MJ (2007) Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly 31 (4), 657–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A and Straub D (2006) Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research 17 (3), 228–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cenfetelli RT (2004) Inhibitors and enablers as dual factors concepts in technology usage. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 5 (11–12), 472–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chae B and Poole MS (2005) Mandates and technology acceptance: a tale of two enterprise technologies. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 14 (2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW, Johnson N and Scwarz A (2008) A fast form approach to measuring technology acceptance and other constructs. MIS Quarterly 32 (4), 687–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coetsee LD (1999) From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly 23 (2), 204–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compeau DR and Higgins CA (1995) Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly 19 (2), 189–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1984) Essentials of Psychological Testing. Harpert & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22 (14), 1111–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day DL (2000) Behavioural effects of attitudes toward constraint in CASE: the impact of development task and project phase. Information Systems Journal 10 (2), 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dent EB and Goldberg SG (1999) Challenging ‘resistance to change’. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 35 (1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M and Gerard HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (3), 629–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey B, Newman D and Prendergast R (2011) Analysing appropriation and usability in social and occupational lives: an investigation of Bangladeshi farmers’ use of mobile telephony. Information, Technology & People 24 (1), 46–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards JR (2001) Multidimensional constructs in organizational behaviour research: an integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods 4 (2), 144–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards JR (2011) The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods 14 (2), 370–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Bourgeois LJ (1988) Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal 31 (4), 737–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleenor JW, Fleenor JB and Grossnickle WF (1996) Inter-rater reliability and agreement of performance ratings: a methodological comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology 10 (3), 367–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebert MA, Korabek B and Scott RE (2006) Moving research into practice: a decision framework for integrating home telehealth into chronic illness care. International Journal of Medical Informatics 75 (12), 786–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzberg F (1964) The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower. Personnel Administration 27 (1), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang JJ, Muhanna WA and Klein G (2000) User resistance and strategies for promoting acceptance across system types. Information & Management 37 (1), 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi K (1990) An investigation of equity as a determinate of user information satisfaction. Decision Sciences 21 (4), 786–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi K (1991) A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly 15 (2), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judson AS (1991) Changing Behavior in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappos A and Rivard S (2008) A three-perspective model of culture, information, and their development and use. MIS Quarterly 32 (3), 601–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karahanna E, Straub DW and Chervany NL (1999) Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly 23 (2), 183–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley RE (1992) The Power of Followership. Currency and Doubleday, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly R and Barsade SG (2001) Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 86 (1), 99–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim HW and Kankanhalli A (2009) Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: a status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly 33 (3), 567–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • King WR and He JJ (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 43 (6), 740–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaus T and Blanton JE (2010) User resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system implementations. European Journal of Information Systems 19 (6), 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knights D and Murray F (1992) Politics and pain in managing information technology: a case study from insurance. Organization Studies 13 (2), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles S and Linn JA (Eds) (2004) Approach-avoidance model of persuasion: alpha and omega strategies for change. In Resistance and Persuasion, pp 117–148, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossek EE, Young W, Gash DC and Nichol V (1994) Waiting for innovation in the human resources department: godot implements a human resource information system. Human Resource Management 33 (1), 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe L and Rivard S (2005) A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly 29 (3), 461–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe L and Rivard S (2007) A triple take on information system implementation. Organization Science 18 (1), 89–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee HG and Clark TH (1997) Market process reengineering through electronic market systems: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems 13 (3), 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi I and Barley SR (2010) What's under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals 4 (1), 1–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social sciences, social equilibria, and social change. Human Relations 1 (1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis MW and Grimes AJ (1999) Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review 24 (4), 672–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang H and Xue Y (2009) Avoidance of information technology threats: a theoretical perspective. MIS Quarterly 33 (1), 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantzana V, Themistocleous M, Irani Z and Morabito V (2007) Identifying healthcare actors involved in the adoption of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (1), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marakas GM and Hornik S (1996) Passive resistance misuse: overt support and covert recalcitrance in MIS implementation. European Journal of Information Systems 5 (3), 208–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (1983) Power, politics and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM 26 (6), 430–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinko MJ, Henry JW and Zmud RW (1996) An attributional explanation of individual resistance to the introduction of information technologies in the workplace. Behaviour & Information Technology 15 (5), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell JA (1992) The Logic of Qualitative Research. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meissonier R and Houzé E (2010) Toward an ‘IT conflict-resistance theory’: action research during it pre-implementation. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (5), 540–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore GC and Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2 (3), 192–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okhuysen GA and Bonardi JP (2011) The challenges of theory building through the combination of lenses. Academy of Management Review 36 (1), 6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peeters JM, Boss JT and Francke AL (2008) Monitor videonetwerken, Peiling najaar 2007. Nivel, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pramatari K and Theotokis A (2009) Consumer acceptance of RFID-enabled services: a model of multiple attitudes, perceived system characteristics and individual traits. European Journal of Information Systems 18 (6), 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell JA and Carroll JM (1999) On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin 15 (1), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal R and Robey D (1995) Reconciling variance and process strategies for studying information system development. Information Systems Research 6 (4), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson W and Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1 (1), 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepers JJL and Wetzels M (2007) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management 44 (1), 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeman E and Gibson S (2009) Predicting acceptance of electronic medical records: is the technology acceptance model enough? SAM Advanced Management Journal 74 (4), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva L (2007) Post positivist review of technology acceptance model. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 8 (4), 255–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith ACT and Graetz FM (2011) Philosophies or Organizational Change. Edward Elger, Gloucester.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle S (1994) Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (3), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyre M and Orlikowski WJ (1994) Windows of opportunity: temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science 5 (1), 98–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Maruping KM and Bala H (2008) Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: the competing roles of behavioural intention, facilitating conditions and behavioural expectation. MIS Quarterly 32 (3), 483–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V and Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46 (2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB and Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddell D and Sohal AS (1998) Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision 36 (8), 543–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J and Lederer A (2009) A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in information technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly 33 (2), 419–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuboff S (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are greatly indebted to the clients, carers, care coordinators, managers and our colleagues who participated in the Koala project. We thank KPN, TZG and Menzis for enabling our cooperation in this project. We are grateful to the associate-editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Marjolein van Offenbeek, Albert Boonstra & DongBack Seo

Authors
  1. Marjolein van Offenbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert Boonstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. DongBack Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marjolein van Offenbeek.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table A1

Table A1 Concepts derived from the acceptance literature used to categorize quotations and develop interpretations
Full size table

Appendix B

Table B1

Table B1 Concepts derived from the resistance literature used to categorize quotations and develop interpretations
Full size table

Appendix C

Table C1

Table C1 Examples of clients’ quotes, categorized in terms of the model's antecedents and (intended) behaviours
Full size table

Appendix D

Table D1

Table D1 Examples of care coordinators’ quotes, categorized in terms of the model's antecedents and (intended) behaviours
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Offenbeek, M., Boonstra, A. & Seo, D. Towards integrating acceptance and resistance research: evidence from a telecare case study. Eur J Inf Syst 22, 434–454 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.29

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.29

Keywords

Search

Navigation