Where does social influence collide?

The degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system, Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis's 2003 definition, pooling subjective norm, social factors, and image. They explained the pooled construct with Kelman's three processes, compliance, identification, and internalization, and found it predicted intention only where use was mandatory, more strongly for women, older workers, and novices. UTAUT2 in 2012 adapted the items for consumers and dropped the voluntariness moderator, since consumers are never compelled. The items are about what important people think the respondent should do, and nothing else.[1][2]

Unit

A user's belief about what important others want them to do with a system

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Four Likert items on important others, influential others, senior management, and organisational support

A person's perception that most people who are important to them think they should or should not perform the behaviour, Fishbein and Ajzen's 1975 construct, carried unchanged into Ajzen's 1991 theory of planned behaviour as the product of normative beliefs and motivation to comply. Taylor and Todd brought it to information systems in 1995 and decomposed it by referent into peer and superior influence; Venkatesh and Davis added it to TAM2 in 2000 and showed it worked on usefulness through internalization and on intention through compliance, only in mandatory settings. This is the parent that UTAUT's items reproduce almost word for word.[3][4][5][6]

Unit

A person's belief about what important others expect of a specific behaviour

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Two to four items on what important others think, weighted by motivation to comply

The individual's internalization of the reference group's subjective culture, and specific interpersonal agreements the individual has made with others in specific social situations, Thompson, Higgins, and Howell's 1991 construct, taken directly from Triandis. The items ask whether the respondent's boss, colleagues, and department are helpful and supportive about using a PC, and social factors predicted actual utilization. Triandis's definition covers norms, roles, and values that a person has absorbed; the items measure perceived support. UTAUT took the items and the support wording, and the internalization idea went into the theory section.[7]

Unit

A user's internalised understanding of what their reference group expects

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Social-factor items on support from boss, colleagues, and the organisation

The degree to which use of an innovation is perceived to enhance one's image or status in one's social system, Moore and Benbasat's 1991 construct, split off from Rogers's relative advantage when their items for prestige and profile refused to load with the performance items. The PCI image items ask whether people who use the innovation have more prestige and a higher profile. Venkatesh and Davis put image in TAM2 as the identification route from subjective norm to usefulness; UTAUT folded it into social influence. Image is about status gained from being seen to use; subjective norm is about pressure to use. They were pooled because they correlate, not because they say the same thing.[8][6]

Unit

An adopter's perception of status gained from visible use

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Image subscale of the PCI

Change in a person's attitudes, beliefs, or behaviour produced by the real or imagined presence of others, the umbrella construct that covers conformity, compliance, obedience, persuasion, and norm following. Deutsch and Gerard split it in 1955 into normative influence, going along to be liked, and informational influence, going along because others are probably right. Kelman split it in 1958 by process: compliance to gain reward or avoid punishment, identification to keep a satisfying relationship, internalization because the induced belief fits one's values. Cialdini and Goldstein's 2004 review organised fifty years of it around goals of accuracy, affiliation, and self-concept. UTAUT's four items sit inside the compliance corner of this construct and borrow its name for the whole.[9][10][11]

Unit

Any change in a person produced by others, real or imagined

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Behavioural conformity in experiments; attitude change; compliance with requests