Understanding the Willingness to Participate in Mobile Surveys: Exploring the Role of Utilitarian,Affective,Hedonic,Social,Self-Expressive,and Trust-Related Factors
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2010
Understanding the Willingness to Participate in Mobile Surveys: Exploring the Role of Utilitarian,Affective,Hedonic,Social,Self-Expressive,and Trust-Related Factors
Mobile technology offers a promising means to collect survey data, though the factors that influence people's willingness to participate in mobile surveys and their actual participation remain unknown. To identify these factors, this study considers six conceptually distinct influences that may relate to the propensity to participate in mobile surveys. Some of them affect technology acceptance and usage of (mobile) technology in general; another set comes from studies of participation in computer-assisted surveys. The proposed unified framework encompasses utilitarian, affective, hedonic, social, self-expressive, and trust-related factors. An empirical study suggests that this framework explains the intention to participate and actual participation well, though of the six factors, hedonic, affective, self-expressive, and trust-related ones are most influential. Utilitarian aspects and beliefs about perceived social pressure to participate do not play significant roles. The authors discuss the practical implications of these results and outline some further research avenues.
Ajzen, I. ( 1985). ‘From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior.’ In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer .
2.
Ajzen, I. ( 1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
3.
Ajzen, I. ( 2002). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved 5, October, 2009, from http://www.-unix.oit.umass.edu/∼aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf
4.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. ( 1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
5.
Bentler, P. ( 2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.
6.
Bosnjak, M., Neubarth, W., Couper, M.P., Bandilla, W., & Kaczmirek, L. ( 2008). Prenotification in web-based access panel surveys: The influence of mobile text messaging versus e-mail on response rates and sample composition. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 213-223.
7.
Bosnjak, M., Obermeier, D., & Tuten, T.L. ( 2006). Predicting and explaining the propensity to bid in online auctions: A comparison of two action-theoretical models. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 102-116.
8.
Bruner, G.C., & Kumar, A. ( 2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices . Journal of Business Research, 58, 553-558.
9.
Cheong, J.H., & Park, M.C. ( 2005). Mobile Internet acceptance in Korea. Internet Research, 15, 125-140.
10.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. ( 2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 511-535.
11.
Couper, M.P., & Nicholls II , W.L. (1998). The history and development of computer assisted survey information collection methods. In M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C. Z. F. Clark, J. Martin , W. L. Nicholls II, et al. (Eds.), Computer assisted survey information collection (pp. 1-21). New York: Wiley.
12.
Dabholkar, P.A., & Bagozzi, R.P. ( 2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 184-201.
13.
Davis, F.D. ( 1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral Dissertation . Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management.
14.
Davis, F.D. ( 1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.
15.
Davis, F.D. ( 1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475-487.
16.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. ( 1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111-1132.
17.
Dibbern, J., Heinzl, A., & Schaub, N. ( 2007). Determinanten der Akzeptanz von mobilen Bankdiensten: Test eines Drei-Perspektiven-Modells. In T. Bayon, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Vielfalt und Einheit in der Marketingwissenschaft: Ein Spannungsverhältnis (pp. 449-478). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
18.
Dillman, D.A. ( 2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed., updated with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
19.
Foley, C., Holzman, C., & Wearing, S. ( 2007). Moving beyond conspicuous leisure consumption: Adolescent women, mobile phones and public space. Leisure Studies, 26, 179-192.
20.
Fox, S. ( 2008). Privacy implications of fast, mobile Internet access . PEW Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Privacy-Implications-of-Fast-Mobile-Internet-Access.aspx
21.
Fuchs, M. ( 2007). Mobile web survey: Möglichkeiten der Verknüpfung von Online-Befragung und Handy-Befragung. In S. Gabler & S. Häder (Eds.), ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial 13: Mobilfunktelefonie-Eine Herausforderung für die Umfrageforschung (pp. 105-126). Mannheim: Z UMA.
22.
Gabler, S., & Häder, S. (2007). ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial 13: Mobilfunktelefonie-Eine Herausforderung für die Umfrageforschung . Mannheim: ZUMA.
23.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D.W. ( 2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model . MIS Quarterly, 27, 51-90.
24.
Horrigan, J., (2008). Mobile access to data and information. PEW Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Mobile-Access-to-Data-and-Information.aspx
25.
Hosoe, S. ( 2005). Exploring the moment of consumption using cellular phones . Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6, 225-240.
26.
Johar, J.S., & Sirgy, M.J. ( 1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20, 23-33.
27.
Kleijnen, M., Wetzels, M., & Ruyter, K. ( 2004). Consumer acceptance of wireless finance. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 8, 206-217.
28.
Konradt, U., & Fary, Y. ( 2006). Determinanten der Motivation und der Bereitschaft zur Teilnahme an Fragebogenstudien. Zeitschrift für Psychologie , 214, 87-96.
29.
Lee, T.M., & Jun, J.K. ( 2005). Contextual perceived usefulness? Toward an understanding of mobile commerce acceptance. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB’05), pp.256-261.
30.
Liao, C.H., Tsou, C.W., & Huang, M.F. ( 2007). Factors influencing the usage of 3G mobile services in Taiwan. Online Information Review, 31, 759-774.
31.
Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C.S., & Wang, K. ( 2008). Determinants of accepting wireless mobile data services in China. Information & Management, 45(1), 52-64.
32.
Lu, J., Yu, C.S., Liu, C., & Yao, J.E. ( 2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research, 13, 206-222.
33.
Ma, Q., & Liu, L. ( 2004). The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing , 16, 59-72.
34.
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. ( 2002). Explaining consumer conduct: From planned to self-expressive behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1431-1451.
35.
Moon, J.W., & Kim, Y.G. ( 2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38, 217-230.
36.
Moore, G.C., & Benbasat, I. ( 1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2, 192-222.
37.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005). Intentions to use mobile services: Antecedents and cross-service comparisons. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 330-346.
38.
Park, Y., & Chen, J.V. ( 2007). Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone . Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107, 1349-1365.
39.
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, 999-1007.
40.
Rao, S., & Troshani, I. ( 2007). A conceptual framework and propositions for the acceptance of mobile services. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 2, 61-73.
41.
Rogelberg, S.G., Fisher, G.G., Maynard, D.C., Hakel, M.D., & Horvath, M. ( 2001). Attitudes toward surveys: Development of a measure and its relationship to respondent behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 3-25.
42.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. ( 2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44, 90-103.
44.
Schleifer, S. ( 1986). Trends in attitudes toward and participation in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 17-26.
45.
Sirgy, M.J. ( 1986). Self-congruity: Toward a theory of personality and cybernetics . New York: Praeger.
46.
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, J.O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C.B., et al. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 229-241.
47.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P.A. ( 1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144-176.
48.
Thorbjørnson, H., Pedersen, P.E., & Nysveen, H. ( 2007). ‘‘This is who I am’’: Identity expressiveness and the theory of planned behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 763-785.
49.
Tjøstheim, I., Thalberg, S., Nordlund, B., & Vestgården, J.I. (2004). Are mobile phone users ready for MCASI? ESOMAR Technovate, 2, 1-24.
50.
Townsend, L. ( 2005). The status of wireless survey solutions: The emerging ‘‘power of the thumb.’’ Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6, 52-58.
51.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. ( 2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science , 46, 186-204.
52.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. ( 2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
53.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., & Grohmann, B. ( 2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 310-320.
54.
Walsh, S.P., & White, K.M. ( 2007). Me, my mobile, and I: The role of self- and prototypical identity influences in the prediction of mobile phone behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2405-2434.
55.
Weber, M., Denk, M., Oberecker, K., Strauss, C., & Stummer, C. ( 2008). Panel surveys go mobile. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6, 88-107.
56.
Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R., & Pallister, J.G. (2007a). Technology acceptance: A metaanalysis of the TAM, PartI. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 251-280.
57.
Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R., & Pallister, J.G. (2007b). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM, Part II. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 281-304.
