Construct · 4 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one construct, many models Nearest construct by meaningstatus quo biascompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to user resistance is status quo bias.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
Markus's 1983 Power, politics, and MIS implementation in Communications of the ACM set out three rival theories of why users resist a new system: that resistance lives in the people (their traits or habits), that it lives in the system (poor design), or that it arises in the interaction between the two, above all when the system redistributes who holds power and information. Markus argued for the interaction account: users resist not the technology as such but the loss of standing, control, or discretion it imposes on them. In this framing user resistance is a political outcome tied to a specific setting, so it cannot be read off the system's features alone. That differs from the later models on this page, which locate resistance in a user's cost calculation or treat it as a general force separate from what drives acceptance.[1]
Lapointe and Rivard's 2005 A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation in MIS Quarterly recast user resistance as a process rather than a fixed attitude. In their model resistance has an object, follows from perceived threats and the initial conditions of the setting, and shows up as behaviours that can escalate from apathy to active opposition, moving from the individual level to the group level as the implementation proceeds. Because the model tracks resistance as it changes shape over time, it treats the same episode differently at different moments. That is a different claim from Markus's account of a political outcome, and different again from a one-time survey of a user's switching costs, though this model builds directly on Markus's interaction idea.[2]
Kim and Kankanhalli's 2009 Investigating User Resistance to Information Systems Implementation: A Status Quo Bias Perspective in MIS Quarterly reframed resistance as the output of a bias toward the current state. On their account a user weighs the switching costs and the perceived value of moving to the new system, and a net loss, together with weak organizational support and low self-efficacy for the change, predicts resistance. This turns resistance into an individual cost and benefit calculation measured before a system goes live, which is a narrower and more cognitive claim than Markus's politics or Lapointe and Rivard's unfolding process. The status-quo bias it rests on has its own page at status-quo-bias; here the construct is the resistance that bias produces toward a specific system.[3]
Bhattacherjee and Hikmet's 2007 Physicians' resistance toward healthcare information technology in the European Journal of Information Systems treated resistance as an inhibitor that is distinct from the drivers of acceptance, not simply the low end of a single scale. On the dual-factor idea, enablers such as perceived usefulness and inhibitors such as resistance to change act through separate paths, so a system can be seen as useful and still be resisted, and removing barriers to acceptance does not remove the resistance. Their study of physicians found resistance to change suppressing the intention to use the technology even after acceptance factors were accounted for. This locates user resistance as a force of its own, which is a different move from reading it as a political outcome, a process, or a switching-cost calculation.[4]
Next
See how user resistance sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct