Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Homo Connectus pp 103–119Cite as

Are Users All the Same? – A Comparative International Analysis of Digital Technology Adoption

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Rapid technological advances have resulted in an array of new digital consumer technologies in the last decade. While there is a continuous uptake in digital technology adoption, certain groups of users are lagging behind, fueling fears of an increasing digital divide. This article attempts to open the “black box” of users by exploring user-centric antecedents of digital technology adoption. Based on an online survey dataset of 7.231 representative Internet users from Germany, Sweden, United States, Brazil, China, and South-Korea, the empirical analysis aims at comparing user-specific demographic, attitudinal and behavioral factors related to digital technology adoption across countries. While we find that users differ significantly in their digital technology adoption among some factors (i.e. age, people in household, education, and being a student or pupil) across countries, we also identify factors with similar impacts across countries (i.e. net income, gender, children in household, and being unemployed). Counteracting tendencies towards an increasing digital divide, this paper pledges for an extensive differentiation of policy measures based on country specific determinants of digital technology adoption. Gaining a better understanding of (dis)similarities among users of digital technologies, these results shall ultimately promote evidence-based business decisions and policymaking.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Srite and Karahanna (2006, pp. 679 ff.).

  2. 2.

    Cf. Davis (1985, pp. 2 ff.), and Venkatesh et al. (2003, pp. 425 ff.).

  3. 3.

    Cf. Rosenberg (1972, pp. 3 ff.), Caselli and Coleman (2001, pp. 328 ff.), Chinn and Fairlie (2007, pp. 16 ff.), Leidner and Kayworth (2006, pp. 357 ff.), and Srite and Karahanna (2006, pp. 679 ff.).

  4. 4.

    Cf. van Dijk and Hacker (2003, pp. 315 ff.), and Porter and Donthu (2006, pp. 999 ff.).

  5. 5.

    Cf. Morris and Venkatesh (2000, pp. 375 ff.).

  6. 6.

    Cf. Venkatesh and Morris (2000, pp. 115 ff.).

  7. 7.

    Cf. Korupp and Szydlik (2005, pp. 409 ff.), and Porter and Donthu (2006, pp. 999 ff.).

  8. 8.

    Cf. Wagner and Hanna (1983, pp. 281 ff.), and Korupp and Szydlik (2005, pp. 409 ff.).

  9. 9.

    Cf. Belch et al. (1985, pp. 163 ff.), Foxman et al. (1989, pp. 482 ff.), Beatty and Talpade (1994, pp. 332 ff.), and Palan and Wilkes (1997, pp. 159 ff.).

  10. 10.

    Cf. Awad and Krishnan (2006, pp. 13 ff.).

  11. 11.

    Cf. Chellappa and Sin (2005, pp. 181 ff.), Chellappa and Shivendu (2007, pp. 193 ff.), Bélanger and Crossler (2011, pp. 1017 ff.), and Hong and Thong (2013, pp. 275 ff.).

  12. 12.

    Cf. Johnston and Warkentin (2010, pp. 549 ff.).

  13. 13.

    Cf. Pavlou et al. (2007, pp. 105 ff.), and Korzaan and Boswell (2008, pp. 15 ff.).

  14. 14.

    Cf. Venkatesh (2000, pp. 343 ff.).

  15. 15.

    Cf. Münchner Kreis et al. (2011, pp. 1 ff.).

  16. 16.

    Chinese survey respondents were exclusively recruited from mega cities with a total population over ten million people.

  17. 17.

    Cf. Miller (1981, p. 8).

  18. 18.

    The VIFs are lower than 1.66 and indicate no problem of autocorrelation and multicollinearity (cf. Cohen et al. 2003, pp. 423–424).

  19. 19.

    Cf. Caselli and Coleman (2001, pp. 328 ff.).

  20. 20.

    Cf. Chellappa and Sin (2005, pp. 181 ff.), and Awad and Krishnan (2006, pp. 13 ff.).

  21. 21.

    Cf. Davis (1985, pp. 2 ff.), and Legris et al. (2003, pp. 191 ff.).

  22. 22.

    Cf. Ajzen (1991, pp. 179 ff.).

  23. 23.

    Cf. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, pp. 1 ff.).

  24. 24.

    Cf. Hofstede (1980, pp. 7 ff.).

  25. 25.

    Cf. Baldwin and Clark (2000, pp. 1 ff.).

  26. 26.

    Cf. Immelt et al. (2009, pp. 56 ff.).

  27. 27.

    Percentage of individuals using the Internet in China: 42%, Brazil: 50%, Germany: 84%, South Korea: 84%, Sweden: 94%; cf. ITU (2013).

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awad, N. F., & Kirshnan, M. S. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quaterly, 30(1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y. & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, S. E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent influence in family decision making: A replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 332–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quaterly, 45(4), 1017–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belch, G. A., Belch, M. A., & Ceresino, G. (1985). Parental and teenage child influence in family decision making. Journal of Business Research, 13(2), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caselli, F., & Coleman, W., II. (2011). Cross-country technology diffusion: The case of computers. American Economic Review, 91(2), 328–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chellappa, R. K., & Shivendu, S. (2007). An economic model of privacy: A property rights approach to regulatory choices for online personalization. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 193–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chellappa, R. K., & Sin, R. G. (2005). Personalization versus privacy: An empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Information Technology and Management, 6(2), 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, M., & Fairlie, R. (2007). The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers, 59(1), 16–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. A. (1985). Technology acceptance Model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijk, J. van, & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxman, E., Tahsuhaj, P., & Ekstrom, K. M. (1989). Adolescents’ influence in family purchase decisions: A socialization perspective. Journal of Business Research, 15(2), 482–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work – Related values. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, W., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2013). Internet privacy concerns: An integrated conceptualization and four empirical studies. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 275–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Immelt, J. R., Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2009). How GE is disrupting itself. Harvard Business Review, 87(10), 56–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU. (2013). Percentage of individuals using the internet. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/statistics/2013/Individuals_Internet_2000-2012.xls. Accessed 10 February 2014.

  • Johnston, A. C., & Warkentin, M. (2010). Fear appeals and information security behaviors: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 549–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korupp, S. E., & Szydlik, M. (2005). Causes and trends of the digital divide. European Sociological Review, 21(4), 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korzaan, M. L., & Boswell, K. T. (2008). The influence of personality traits and information privacy concerns on behavioral intentions. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48(4), 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 48(3), 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leidner, D. E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). Review: A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. G. Jr. (1981). Simultaneous statistical inference. New York, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoptions decisions: Implications for a changing workforce. Personal Psychology, 52(2), 375–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münchner, Kreis, EICT, Siemens, Telekom, TNS Infrastest, & Zdf. (2011). Pictures of the future in a digital world – An international comparison of user perspectives. http://www.tns-infratest.com/Presse/pdf/Presse/Pictures_of_the_Future_in_a_Digital_World.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2014.

  • Palan, K. M., & Wilkes, R. E. (1997). Adolescent-parent interaction in family decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 999–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1972). Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explorations in Economic History, 10(1), 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, and emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 343–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop and ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Towards a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J., & Hanna, S. (1983). The effectiveness of family life cycle variables in consumer expenditure research. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. München, Deutschland

    Stefan Hopf & Arnold Picot

Authors
  1. Stefan Hopf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnold Picot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hopf .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hamburg, Germany

    Frank Keuper

  2. Hamburg, Germany

    Marc Schomann

  3. Hamburg, Germany

    Linda Isabell Sikora

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hopf, S., Picot, A. (2018). Are Users All the Same? – A Comparative International Analysis of Digital Technology Adoption. In: Keuper, F., Schomann, M., Sikora, L. (eds) Homo Connectus. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19133-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19133-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-19132-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-19133-7

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation