Despite the studies probing the factors associated with the adoption of 5G technology
products, the current state of knowledge about this new technology products is still
fragmented. Previous research has mainly concentrated on the “cumulative impact” of
factors rather than the complexities of behavior. Based on complexity theory, this article
aims to explain the behavioral intention of using 5G technology products by evaluating the
combination of functional (i.e. price and quality), social (i.e. environmental awareness
and knowledge) and consumer personality (i.e. openness and consciousness) factors as
causal configuration. A sample of 150 Chinese consumers was examined using the fuzzy set
qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) technique. The fsQCA outcomes illustrate that
five different and effective configurations of functionality, social, and consumer
personality factors exist to attain apex level intention of using 5G technology products.
This article extends the existing literature by espousing a new procedural attitude to
divulge the intricacy of 5G products adoption. It also provides valuable suggestions for
5G technology service managers and manufacturers to enhance the technology, social, and
consumer personality features combination to implement 5G technology products
successfully.
ChiangA.-H. and
TrimiS.,
Impacts of service robots on service quality,
Service Business14(3) (2020),
439–459.
2.
BogueR., Effects of
COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: A perspective article, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management (2020).
3.
JiangY. and WenJ.,
Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: A perspective article,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (2020).
4.
Oinas-KukkonenH.,
KarppinenP. and
KekkonenM.,
5G and 6G broadband cellular network technologies as enablers of new
avenues for behavioral influence with examples from reduced rural-urban digital
divide, Urban Science5(3) (2021), 60. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5030060.
5.
ShahS.K., ZhongjunT., SattarA. and XinHaoZ.,
Consumer’s intention to purchase 5G: Do environmental awareness,
environmental knowledge and health consciousness attitude matter?Technology in Society65 (2021), 101563. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101563.
6.
MaengK., KimJ.
and ShinJ.,
Demand forecasting for the 5G service market considering consumer
preference and purchase delay behavior, Telematics and
Informatics47 (2020), 101327. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101327.
7.
ShahS.K. and ZhongjunT.,
Elaborating on the consumer’s intention–behavior gap regarding 5G
technology: The moderating role of the product market-creation ability,
Technology in Society66 (2021), 101657. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101657.
8.
BalapourA., NikkhahH.R. and
SabherwalR.,
Mobile application security: Role of perceived privacy as the predictor
of security perceptions, International Journal of Information
Management52(202), 102063.
9.
MatthewsG., et
al., Evolution and revolution: Personality research for the coming
world of robots, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems,
Personality and Individual Differences169 (2021), 109969.
10.
WoodsideA.G., The
complexity turn: Cultural, management, and marketing applications, Springer,
2017.
11.
MustafaS., ZhangW., ShehzadM.U., AnwarA.
and RubakulaG.,
Does health consciousness matter to adopt new technology? An integrated
model of UTAUT2 with SEM-fsQCA approach, Frontiers in
Psychology13 (2022).
12.
OlyaH.G. and AkhshikA.,
Tackling the complexity of the pro-environmental behavior intentions of
visitors to turtle sites, Journal of Travel Research58(2) (2019),
313–332.
13.
Berg-SchlosserD. and
De
MeurG., Comparative
research design: Case and variable selection, Configurational
Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related
Techniques1 (2009),
19–32.
14.
TimberlakeM., The
Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, ed: JSTOR,
1989.
15.
PappasI.O. and WoodsideA.G.,
Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for
research practice in Information Systems and marketing,
International Journal of Information Management58 (2021), 102310.
16.
ThiemA.,
Clearly crisp, and not fuzzy: A reassessment of the (putative) pitfalls
of multi-value QCA, Field Methods25(2) (2013),
197–207.
17.
PappasI.O., GiannakosM.N. and
SampsonD.G.,
Fuzzy set analysis as a means to understand users of 21st-century
learning systems: The case of mobile learning and reflections on learning analytics
research, Computers in Human Behavior92 (2019),
646–659.
18.
RafiqueH., AlroobaeaR., MunawarB.A., KrichenM., RubaieeS. and BashirA.K.,
Do digital students show an inclination toward continuous use of academic
library applications? A case study, The Journal of Academic
Librarianship47(2) (2021),
102298.
19.
WirtzJ., et
al., Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline, Journal of Service
Management (2018).
20.
DavisF.D., Perceived
usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS
Quarterly (1989), 319–340. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
21.
GoH., KangM.
and SuhS.C., Machine learning
of robots in tourism and hospitality: Interactive technology acceptance model
(iTAM)–cutting edge, Tourism Review (2020).
22.
AlRoobaeaR. and
MayhewP.J., The impact of
usability on e-marketing strategy in international tourism industry, in 2014 Science and
Information Conference, IEEE, 2014, pp. 961–966.
23.
AlaiadA. and ZhouL.,
The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical
investigation, International Journal of Medical
Informatics83(11) (2014),
825–840.
24.
VenkateshV., MorrisM.G., DavisG.B. and DavisF.D., User acceptance
of information technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly (2023), 425–478. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
25.
PaulJ., ModiA.
and PatelJ.,
Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and
reasoned action, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services29 (2016),
123–134.
26.
WangS., WangJ.,
LinS. and LiJ.,
Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of
public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public
engagement, Energy Policy126 (2019), 352–360. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.040.
27.
ChenM.-F. and TungP.-J.,
Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict
consumers’ intention to visit green hotels, International
Journal of Hospitality Management36 (2014),
221–230.
28.
ShenJ., Understanding the
determinants of consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-labeled products: An empirical
analysis of the China Environmental Label, 2012.
29.
AmyxD.A., DeJongP.F., LinX.,
ChakrabortyG. and
WienerJ.L., Influencers
of purchase intentions for ecologically safe products: An exploratory study, in Marketing
Theory and Applications, Proceedings of the 1994 American Marketing Association Winter
Educators Conference, vol. 5: AMA Chicago, 1994, pp. 341–347.
30.
JungS., LimH.-T., KwakS.
and BioccaF., Personality and
facial expressions in human-robot interaction, in 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, 2012, pp. 161–162.
31.
LeeK.M., PengW.,
JinS.-A. and YanC.,
Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality
recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot
interaction, Journal of Communication56(4) (2006),
754–772.
32.
TRANV.D.,
Assessing the effects of service quality, experience value, relationship
quality on behavioral intentions, The Journal of Asian Finance,
Economics, and Business7(3) (2020),
167–175. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no3.167.
33.
DembkowskiS. and
Hanmer-LloydS.,
The environmental value-attitude-system model: A framework to guide the
understanding of environmentally-conscious consumer behaviour,
Journal of Marketing Management10(7) (1994),
593–603.
34.
LiY., YangS.,
ChenY. and YaoJ.,
Effects of perceived online–offline integration and internet censorship
on mobile government microblogging service continuance: A gratification
perspective, Government Information Quarterly35(4) (2018),
588–598.
35.
WangS., FanJ.,
ZhaoD., YangS.
and FuY.,
Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: Using
an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model,
Transportation43(1) (2016),
123–143.
36.
KuoY.-F., WuC.-M.
and DengW.-J.,
The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added
services, Computers in Human Behavior25(4) (2009),
887–896.
37.
KimH.-W., ChanH.C. and GuptaS.,
Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical
investigation, Decision Support Systems43(1) (2007),
111–126.
38.
ShethJ.N., NewmanB.I. and GrossB.L.,
Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values,
Journal of Business Research22(2) (1991),
159–170. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8.
39.
SweeneyJ.C. and
SoutarG.N.,
Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item
scale, Journal of Retailing77(2) (2001),
203–220.
40.
OyedeleA. and SimpsonP.M., An empirical
investigation of consumer control factors on intention to use selected self-service
technologies, International Journal of Service Industry Management
(2007).
41.
FinchJ.E.,
The impact of personal consumption values and beliefs on organic food
purchase behavior, Journal of Food Products Marketing11(4) (2006),
63–76.
42.
LinP.-C. and HuangY.-H.,
The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based
on the theory of consumption values, Journal of Cleaner
Production22(1) (2012),
11–18.
43.
BiswasA. and SherrellD.L.,
The influence of product knowledge and brand name on internal price
standards and confidence, Psychology & Marketing10(1) (1993),
31–46.
44.
TandonA., KaurP.,
BhattY., MäntymäkiM. and
DhirA., Why
do people purchase from food delivery apps? A consumer value
perspective, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services63 (2021), 102667.
45.
HopwoodB., MellorM. and O’BrienG.,
Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches,
Sustainable Development13(1) (2005),
38–52.
46.
MostafaM.M.,
A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian
consumer, Psychology & Marketing24(5) (2007),
445–473.
47.
BarberN., TaylorC. and StrickS.,
Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: Influence on
willingness to purchase, International Journal of Wine
Research1(1) (2009),
59–72.
48.
AlhadretiO., AlRoobaeaR., WnukK.
and MayhewP.J., The impact of
usability of online library catalogues on the user performance, in 2014 International
Conference on Information Science & Applications (ICISA), IEEE, 2014, pp. 1165
1–4.
49.
WangJ.-L., JacksonL.A., ZhangD.-J. and SuZ.-Q.,
Therelationships among the Big Five Personality factors,
self-esteem,narcissism, and sensation-seeking to Chinese University students’uses of
social networking sites (SNSs), Computers in
HumanBehavior28(6) (2012),
2313–2319.
50.
CostaT.Jr,
The NEO-PI-R professional manual: Revised NEO Five-Factor Inventory.(NEO-FFI),
Psychological Assessment Resources (1992).
51.
GeorgeJ.M. and ZhouJ.,
When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative
behavior: An interactional approach, Journal of Applied
Psychology86(3) (2001),
513.
52.
DevarajS., EasleyR.F. and CrantJ.M.,
Research note—how does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model
to technology acceptance and use, Information Systems
Research19(1) (2008),
93–105.
53.
KulsumaN.,
Determinants of consumers’ intention and their behaviour in buying liquid
milk, Asian Profile46 (2018), 295–310. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.15373/2249555x/dec2013/80.
54.
ChristouP., SimillidouA. and
StylianouM.C., Tourists’
perceptions regarding the use of anthropomorphic robots in tourism and hospitality,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (2020).
55.
ChuahS.H.-W.,
AwE.C.-X. and
YeeD.,
Unveiling the complexity of consumers’ intention to use service robots:
An fsQCA approach, Computers in Human Behavior123 (2021), 106870.
56.
JiaJ.W., ChungN.
and HwangJ., Assessing the
hotel service robot interaction on tourists’ behaviour: The role of anthropomorphism,
Industrial Management & Data Systems (2021).
57.
YuC.-E.,
Humanlike robots as employees in the hotel industry: Thematic content
analysis of online reviews, Journal of Hospitality Marketing
& Management29(1) (2020),
22–38.
58.
BelancheD., CasalóL.V., FlaviánC. and SchepersJ.,
Service robot implementation: A theoretical framework and
researchagenda, The Service Industries Journal40(3-4) (2020),
203–225.
59.
LeischnigA., HennebergS.C. and
ThorntonS.C.,
Net versus combinatory effects of firm and industry antecedents of sales
growth, Journal of Business Research69(9) (2016),
3576–3583.
60.
PappasN.,
The complexity of consumer experience formulation in the sharing
economy, International Journal of Hospitality
Management77 (2019),
415–424.
61.
FarmakiA., OlyaH.
and TaheriB.,
Unpacking the complex interactions among customers in online fan
pages, Journal of Business Research125 (2021),
164–176.
62.
TaheriB., OlyaH.,
AliF. and GannonM.J.,
Understanding the influence of airport servicescape on traveler
dissatisfaction and misbehavior, Journal of Travel
Research59(6) (2020),
1008–1028.
63.
Kifayat
shahS. and TangZ.,
Understanding the mediating effect of anchoring price in extant mature 4G and
market-creating 5G technology products, International Journal of Innovation and Technology
Management (2022). [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219877022500389.
64.
LiL., WangZ.,
LiY. and LiaoA.,
Impacts of consumer innovativeness on the intention to purchase
sustainable products, Sustainable Production and
Consumption27 (2021),
774–786.
65.
SchwarzN., Feelings as
information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. The Guilford
Press, 1990.
66.
ShanL., DiaoH.
and WuL.,
Influence of the framing effect, anchoring effect, and knowledge on
consumers’ attitude and purchase intention of organic food,
Frontiers in Psychology11 (2020), 2022.
67.
OmarN.A., AbdullahN.L., ZainolZ. and NazriM.A.,
Consumers’ responsiveness towards contaminated canned sardine in
Malaysia: Does perceived severity matter?Food Control123 (2021), 107780. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107780.
68.
RaginC.C.,
Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond,
Social Forces88(4) (2009),
1936–1938.
69.
SchmittA.K., GraweA.
and WoodsideA.G.,
Illustrating the power of fsQCA in explaining paradoxical consumer
environmental orientations, Psychology & Marketing34(3) (2017),
323–334.
70.
SharifS.M.F.,
NaidingY. and
ShahS.K., Restraining
knowledge leakage in collaborative projects through HRM, VINE Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems (2022).
71.
ZhongjunT., ShahS.K., AhmadM.
and MustafaS., Modeling
consumer’s switching intentions regarding 5G technology in China, International Journal of
Innovation and Technology Management (2022), 2250011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219877022500110.
72.
GreckhamerT.,
FurnariS., FissP.C. and AguileraR.V.,
Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best
practicesin strategy and organization research, Strategic
Organization16(4) (2018),
482–495.
73.
ParkS.Y., NamM.W.
and ChaS.B.,
University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning:
Evaluating the technology acceptance model, British Journal of
Educational Technology43(4) (2012),
592–605.
74.
YeapJ.A., RamayahT. and Soto-AcostaP.,
Factors propelling the adoption of m-learning among students in higher
education, Electronic Markets26(4) (2016),
323–338.
75.
LinT.-C., WuS.,
HsuJ.S.-C. and
ChouY.-C.,
The integration of value-based adoption and expectation–confirmation
models: An example of IPTV continuance intention, Decision
Support Systems54(1) (2012),
63–75.
76.
BansalG., ZahediF.M. and GefenD., Do
context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private
information online, Information & Management53(1) (2016),
1–21.
77.
XuX., WangS.
and YuY.,
Consumer’s intention to purchase green furniture: Do health consciousness
and environmental awareness matter?Science of the Total Environment704 (2020), 135275.
78.
HaQ.-A., ChenJ.V., UyH.U.
and CapistranoE.P.,
Exploring the privacy concerns in using intelligent virtual assistants
under perspectives of information sensitivity and anthropomorphism,
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction37(6) (2021),
512–527.
79.
LetherenK., KuhnK.-A.L., LingsI.
and PopeN.K.L., Individual
difference factors related to anthropomorphic tendency, European Journal of Marketing
(2016).
80.
LinH., ChiO.H.
and GursoyD.,
Antecedents of customers’ acceptance of artificially intelligent robotic
device use in hospitality services, Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management29(5) (2020),
530–549.
81.
LuY., PapagiannidisS. and
AlamanosE.,
Exploring the emotional antecedents and outcomes of technology
acceptance, Computers in Human Behavior90 (2019),
153–169.
82.
LutzC., SchöttlerM. and
HoffmannC.P.,
The privacy implications of social robots: Scoping review and expert
interviews, Mobile Media & Communication7(3) (2019),
412–434.
83.
ChungH., IorgaM., VoasJ.
and LeeS.,
Alexa, can I trust you?Computer50(9) (2017),
100–104.
