Journal of Computer Information Systems

ISSN: 0887-4417 (Print) 2380-2057 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucis20

Social Comparison, Goal Contagion, and Adoption

of Innovative Information Technology

Namyeon Lee, Sinan Li, Bongsik Shin & Ohbyung Kwon

To cite this article: Namyeon Lee, Sinan Li, Bongsik Shin & Ohbyung Kwon (2016) Social
Comparison, Goal Contagion, and Adoption of Innovative Information Technology, Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 56:2, 127-136, DOI: 10.1080/08874417.2016.1117374

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1117374

Published online: 15 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucis20

Download by: [University College of Southeast Norway] Date: 28 February 2017, At: 04:02
 SOCIAL COMPARISON, GOAL CONTAGION, AND
ADOPTION OF INNOVATIVE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
NAMYEON LEE
Sungkyul University, Anyang, Korea
BONGSIK SHIN
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA
Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
ABSTRACT
When adopting a new, innovative information technology (IT),
most institutions tend to lack knowledge about it initially.
However, they often adopt new ITs despite their illiteracy. This
behavior is difcult to explain using rational IT adoption
theories. Focusing on the organizational decision-making
process behind adoption of innovative IT, we examine the
strategy by which some companies compensate for their lack
of knowledge: collection of information from other companies
that have successfully adopted IT previously. We develop a new
IT adoption model for which goal contagion theory and social
comparison theory are combined to interpret the circumstances
under which organizations tend to adopt new, innovative IT
despite limited knowledge about it. Big data, cloud services,
and smart mobile systems are considered as examples of
innovative IT in the empirical study.
Keywords: Innovative IT, IT adoption, goal contagion,
social comparison, organizational decision-making, big data
INTRODUCTION
As development of information technology (IT) continues at
a rapid pace, corporate decision-making regarding the benets
of IT adoption becomes more difcult because many companies
have limited knowledge about the products. For example, big
data offer interesting possibilities for companies, many of which
are actively considering its adoption despite their lack of experi-
ence with it [10]. Because companies put themselves at risk
when they procure innovative IT, lack of knowledge limits
decision-makers in their evaluation of the benets and draw-
backs of IT adoption.
Despite the novelty and advantages of innovative IT [36],
however, companies adopting this technology early are more
likely to be less informed about how to use it than companies
that wait and adopt later. This makes many companies be still
un-decisive in adopting innovative IT such as big data analytics
[37]. To them, innovative IT may be a sociotechnical phenom-
enon whose real benets should be critically questioned and
carefully examined. In rms with limited IT literacy, managers
may view innovative IT with skepticism, uncertainty, prejudice,
and preconceptions; they may question its ability to advance the
companys objectives [47]. For example, companies may gen-
erally agree that big data analytics will help business-to-market
sensing, product planning, and prots; however, they may be
unsure how to take advantage of the opportunity or what big
data really are. Understanding the benets of big data comes
with increased education.
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems
SINAN LI
Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
OHBYUNG KWON
Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
Although early adopters have many advantages, uncertain
factors such as the high price may deter companies from adopt-
ing a technology. While weighing the potential benets and
costs of adopting innovative IT, many companies choose to
wait and watch the experiences of other companies. In many
cases, managers have no choice about the timing of adoption, as
rms with less experience, lower capability, or fewer resources
may be forced to adopt it later than stronger rms. IT adoption
theories such as the theory of planned behavior imply that
organizations with limited IT literacy often hesitate to adopt
innovative IT as IT literacy increases perceptions of behavioral
control and self-efcacy [8]. Hence, from the resource-based
view and IT capability theory perspectives, limited IT literacy
is a considerable barrier to innovative IT adoption and success.
Some companies decide to acquire innovative IT, while others
do not. For example, according to the report of a leading consult-
ing rm, around 61% of American companies indicated that they
intended to purchase big data solutions despite their lack of big
data expertise and insufcient knowledge of how to make use of
the solutions [27]. This disconnectivityoften a source of IT
adoption failurescannot be logically explained by IT adoption
theories grounded on the assumption of rational decision-making.
Moreover, although researchers have tried to understand the adop-
tion mechanism of each innovative IT, such as big data [37],
mobile applications [32], cloud computing services [42], and
social media [33], an integrated view to investigate the adoption
process of innovative IT have been very few. In light of this, a new
model is proposed to explicate adoption behaviors of innovative
IT by companies with limited IT literacy. In particular, differen-
tiated from prior studies that mostly took the position of rationality
in decision-making (e.g., theory of reasoned action) on IT adop-
tion, we focus on the companys IT adoption behavior despite the
dearth of knowledge to make rational decisions grounded on two
theories: social comparison theory and theory of goal contagion.
From the viewpoint of social comparison theory originated by
Festinger [23], we show that knowledge about innovative IT can
be successfully acquired by observing the experiences of other
companies. In addition, based on social comparison theory, we
empirically examine how corporations utilize goal contagion [4]
for adoption planning to cope with knowledge ambiguity.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
We draw on two theoretical perspectives to explain the
intention to adopt innovative IT in rms with limited IT literacy:
those of social comparison and goal contagion. These are dis-
cussed below.
127
Social Comparison Theory
Social comparison theory is centered on the belief that there is
a drive among individuals to evaluate themselves accurately [23].
The theory explains how individuals evaluate their own opinions
and abilities by comparing themselves with others as part of
learning how to dene the self. The main motivation of social
comparison is self-assessment [58]. According to the theory,
decision-makers choose organizations that are comparable to
their own in terms of performance in order to identify themselves
accurately [54]. Comparison among similar organizations in
terms of products and resources may increase the quality of the
inferences drawn from the comparison.
According to Festinger [23], social comparison involves
gathering of not only objective information, but also information
about the performance of others. In the context of IT adoption,
this implies that comparison related to IT involves gathering
knowledge about the technology itself and about other compa-
nies performance after IT adoption. This comparison is more
salient when corporate decision-makers lack knowledge to eval-
uate their own ability to adopt the IT successfully. When com-
panies recognize the impact of IT adoption on change, risky
investment, and innovation, they engage in social comparison
activities [7, 20, 30]. In this study, we examine how decision-
makers choose comparable organizations to evaluate innovative
IT they may like to acquire for their organization.
Goal Contagion Theory
Goal contagion is dened as the automatic adoption and
pursuit of goals as a result of observing another persons pursuit
of those goals. According to this theory, simply perceiving
others goal-directed behavior can stimulate unconscious moti-
vation to pursue the goal as ones own [4]. Leander and Shah
[38] dene goal contagion as follows: Goal contagion is. . . a
process in which perceivers inadvertently catch goals inferred
from others behavior; in addition, they state that social per-
ception is often driven by the broader contexts surrounding
othersand these contexts may sufce to drive goal inferences
and contagion on their own [38, p. 187].
Automatic goal inferences afford a direct understanding of
the intentions of other people and may promote the successful
pursuit of fullling ones own needs and goals without con-
scious guidance. Human beings are capable of initiating and
pursuing the goals they infer from other peoples actions auto-
matically [3]. Studies on goal contagion mainly focus on uncon-
scious pursuit of goals in social settings such as schools and
organizations. Recent studies on goal contagion demonstrated
that people automatically infer and pursue the goals perceived in
others behaviors [1, 9, 31, 44].
Torres [59] studied the timing of goal contagion. According
to that research, when goals are implied under positive, socially
acceptable circumstances, individuals exhibit similar goal-direc-
ted behaviors without giving much conscious thought. By con-
trast, when goals are implied under negative, socially
unacceptable circumstances, individuals tend not to pursue the
goals. Aarts et al. [3] also found that goal contagion is less likely
to occur when goal pursuits unfold in a socially unacceptable
way; in such circumstances, the implied goal is less desirable.
The circumstances within an innovative IT market are similar.
Rapid developments in research and technology require efcient
processing of new technology. Timely and cost-effective analy-
sis of new technology has emerged as a key ingredient for
success in businesses, scientic and engineering disciplines,
and non-prot sectors (e.g., government) [15, 39]. Thus, in this
behavioral research, we utilize goal contagion theory to examine
the effects of adoption timing of big data analytics.
128 Journal of Computer Information Systems
Two factors inuence goal contagion: others behaviors and
situational context. Direct or indirect exposure to others beha-
vior can be inuential for a person to form a goal; the context in
which a behavior is manifested may render enough information
to motivate goal pursuit [2, 24, 38]. Some examples of situa-
tional context are as follows. First, it occurs more frequently
among friends and in-group members than in other relationships
[38]. Loersch et al. [44] observed that people were more likely
to take on the goals of individuals who attended the same
university. Second, goal contagion is more frequently observed
when the perceived context is relevant to the observer.
In addition, enhanced accessibility of a goal promotes moti-
vational behaviors. Priming of a goal-pursuing state produces
motivational goal-directed activities. Motivation to attain a goal
grows when the affective valence of behavioral states is shaped
positively [18]. In this study, we examine goal contagion
although mostly studied in social settingsin the business set-
ting, especially in the context of adoption of innovative IT.
MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
A research model is proposed based on the theories of social
comparison and goal contagion to predict rms intention to
obtain innovative IT despite their lack of knowledge about it
[4, 23] (Figure 1). In the model, the intention to adopt innovative
IT depends on two constructs: knowledge ambiguity about the
technology and knowledge ambiguity about others use of the
technology. The traditional approach explains acquisition inten-
tions on the assumption that decision-making in companies are
rational, so they are inuenced by such perceptions as usefulness
and ease of use of the technology [19]. However, corporate
decision-making is not always completely rational. In addition,
goal contagion theory states that goal adoption may be moti-
vated by observing others behaviors [4, 38]. These facts are,
therefore, reected in the model.
Goal Contagion and Usage Intention
According to goal contagion theory, goal pursuit is usually
activated by words relevant to the goal or stories containing
social information [60]. In the case of innovative technology
adoption, social information about how it was or is being
used in other companies helps managers in their decision-
making. In addition, goal-relevant information becomes the
focus; the pros and cons of adoption are weighed to aid in the
decision-making [4].
Behavior may motivate behavior, particularly when the
observer gains knowledge of specic goals that members of a
group are likely to pursue [9]. Accordingly, encoding goals that
are stereotypical for social groups may automatically trigger
perceivers to pursue these goals themselves [2]. Hence, goal
contagion theory helps us understand the goal-setting behavior
of people who have less knowledge about that goal [60].
In the context of adopting innovative IT, knowledge of how
other companies are using IT through observations of their
behavior may encourage companies to pursue the same goal
and increase the intention to adopt the IT [49]. Companies
may be inuenced by information about and the adoption inten-
tion of other companies who have previously pursued a goal.
For example, after studying Amazons big data platform, GS
Home Shopping adopted goals previously adopted by Amazon,
implementing an opinion mining program using big data. This
differs from intentional knowledge gathering and testing of the
technical, operational, and nancial feasibility of pursuing an
already established goal to acquire innovative IT [37].
Feasibility tests may examine the usefulness, ease of use, and
anticipated benet of using the IT. Goal contagion theory opens
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016

Knowledge
ambiguity
about
H2
innovative IT
H5
Social
comparison
orientation
H3
H6
Knowledge
ambiguity
about other
company
* Dotted line indicates that there is no causality between the two adjacent constructs.
FIGURE 1. Research Model
new possibilities about the factors that encourage a company to
adopt innovative IT. Thus, we hypothesize that:
H1: Goal contagion is positively associated with intention to
adopt innovative IT.
Knowledge Ambiguity
According to the resource-based and knowledge management
literature, knowledge contributes to a rms heterogeneity and
competitive advantage [45, 46]. On the other hand, lack of
knowledge (i.e., ambiguity) makes a company weaker.
Knowledge ambiguity is dened as a lack of understanding of
the logical linkages between marketing actions and outcomes,
inputs and outputs, and causes and effects that characterize a
broadly dened marketing-based competency and its transfer-
ability [56, p. 467]. The concept of knowledge ambiguity is
borrowed from Lippman and Rumelts [43] concept of causal
ambiguity, which is the ambiguity concerning the nature of the
causal connections between actions and results [43, p. 38]. In
the context of IT adoption, knowledge ambiguity about IT may
prohibit purchase managers from feeling condent that IT adop-
tion will provide a competitive advantage [14, 55]. Companies
with less experience with innovative, novel IT and more experi-
ence with conventional, older IT may be more likely to hesitate
than companies with more experience with innovative technol-
ogies. Hence, we hypothesize that:
H2: Knowledge ambiguity about innovative IT is negatively
related to intention to adopt innovative IT.
However, when it comes to the relationships between knowl-
edge ambiguity about innovative IT and goal contagion, goal
contagion occurs from observing others or other organizations,
not from just lack of knowledge of IT. According to the concept
of goal contagion, which is the automatic adoption of a goal
upon perceiving anothers goal-directed behavior, goal
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems
Firm size
H4
Intention to
Goal H1
adopt
contagion
innovative IT
Perceived
usefulness
Control variable
contagion behavior has nothing to do with how much or how
clearly they have knowledge or information in a priori [3]. This
is why the model excludes the causality between knowledge
ambiguity about innovative IT and goal contagion.
Meanwhile, goal contagion is restricted by the dearth of
knowledge about anothers goal-directed behavior [3]. In other
words, there is more goal contagion increases when a person
clearly knows that others being compared with him/her are
attractive and useful [1]. This implies that if one has ambiguous
knowledge about the comparing company and hence the pur-
chase manager has less condence that the company is useful,
then the manager would not be inuenced by the companys
goals. Research also suggests that knowledge ambiguity about
the comparing company may result from organizational or busi-
ness heterogeneity, which prohibits the probability of goal con-
tagion [44]. This reasoning is consistent with the ndings of
Aarts et al. [1] that goals are not automatically adopted and
hence corporate decision-makers may not pursue a technological
goal unless knowledge about the comparing company is obvious
that the decision not to adopt would be detrimental to the
company. Hence, we hypothesize that:
H3: Knowledge ambiguity about other companies is nega-
tively associated with goal contagion.
Note that in the research model proposed in this article,
knowledge ambiguity about other companies is not directly
associated with the intention to adopt innovative IT. To our
best knowledge, any literatures and evidences which indicate
the direct relationship between knowledge about other company
and IT adoption are not found.
Moderating Effect of Firm Size
Schumpeter [53] suggested that rm size is the key predictor
of radical product innovation. Following Schumpeter [53], many
researchers have suggested that rm size is the key predictor of
129
radical product innovation. However, few studies have con-
ducted if the Schumpeters assumption is applicable to the
adoption of innovative IT. Since the relationship between rm
size and technology innovation has been contradictorysome
advocated the positive relationship [16, 17], whilst others not [5,
52]hypothesis testing which aims to examine the moderating
effect of rm size on innovative IT adoption is well grounded.
First, according to Lee and Xia [40]s study, there can be
pressure from competitors for a rm to adopt the new IT in
small- and medium-sized enterprises. As for small- and med-
ium-sized enterprises, if your competitors have it, that could
spur you to adopt (the IT) [35, p. 30]. On the other hand, due to
uncertainties in the capital market, small- and medium-sized
rms may nd it difcult to take risks in innovative IT that
requires early capital investment. Also, reaping benets from
innovative IT demands economy of scale and, thus, this could
bring higher returns on investment to large corporations [17].
When there is much uncertainty despite the high initial expense,
small- and medium-sized rms naturally become more hesitant
than large enterprises in taking bold steps unless the former are
condent about the rewards of such investment. Big rms,
meanwhile, have a considerably higher degrees of freedom in
bankrolling efforts (e.g., education, outsourcing, M/A) to obtain
necessary competence in innovative IT. This leads us to believe
that the lack of competence in innovative IT may be less dis-
couraging among bigger rms than among smaller or medium
rms. Moreover, the CEO often has a signicant role in the
adoption of IT and CEO who is knowledgeable about IT is more
likely to adopt IT in small- and medium-sized enterprises than
big-sized enterprises [40]. Hence, we hypothesize:
H4: Knowledge ambiguity about innovative IT inuences
intention to adopt innovative IT more strongly for small business
than it inuences big sized companies. (i.e., the effect of knowl-
edge ambiguity about innovative IT on intention to adopt inno-
vative IT is moderated by rm size).
Social Comparison
Originally proposed by Festinger [23], social comparison
theory holds that individuals are motivated to evaluate their
own opinions and abilities, and when objective information
concerning the adequacy of their opinions and abilities is not
available, they attempt to obtain such information by compar-
ing them to those held by other individuals. According to the
social comparison theory, people gather information from
others to evaluate self [12]. This phenomenon may also be
observed in the context of IT in organizational procurement
decision-making processes. Managers in charge of purchasing
innovative IT must make precise and informed decisions about
its contribution to the competence of their organizations. In
general, since practical knowledge about innovative IT is more
accessible to such managers than the academic knowledge
available to professional developers, they naturally look to
other organizations to learn about the technology.
Organizations with the potential to adopt innovative IT are
often eager to hear the successful adoption stories of other
companies, examine data from vendors, and benchmark the
experiences of their competitors. This social comparison may
resolve their questions about the applicability of the technology
to their organizations. In this article, rather that the social
comparison activity, we focus on social comparison orientation,
which refers to the procurement managers personality disposi-
tion of interest in learning how their situation is in comparison
to that of others [26, 57]. Thus, it is anticipated that social
comparison orientation contributes to the resolution of knowl-
edge ambiguity about innovative IT.
130 Journal of Computer Information Systems
H5: IT procurement managers social comparison orienta-
tion is negatively related to knowledge ambiguity about innova-
tive IT.
Investigating other companies adoption and usage behavior
and the ensuing results may resolve knowledge ambiguity about
innovative IT. In addition, such investigation can increase
knowledge about other companies. The results of many adoption
studies afrm that the quality of IT itself is insufcient to satisfy
managers. Knowledge ambiguity occurs when the source of a
rms competitive advantage is unknown [56]. This implies that,
with a manager of higher social comparison orientation, organi-
zations can learn more about how other companies make use of
innovative IT. From the perspectives of the resource-based view
and IT capability theory, factors related to leadership, organiza-
tional processes, and usage experiences as intangible assets may
also signicantly affect rm performance [34, 41]. Hence, we
hypothesize that:
H6: IT procurement managers social comparison orienta-
tion is negatively related to knowledge ambiguity about other
companies.
METHODS
A survey was conducted to test the proposed hypotheses.
Details of the survey are as follows.
Measures
A questionnaire was designed consisting of 24 items scored
on a 7-point Likert scale. The denitions and items of the
constructs are shown in Table 1 and Appendix 1, respectively.
The six constructs of interest to this study were social compar-
ison orientation, goal contagion, knowledge ambiguity about
other companies, knowledge ambiguity about innovative tech-
nology, perceived usefulness of innovative technology, and
intention to adopt innovative IT. Each construct was measured
using multiple-item scales, adapted and extended from prior
research, and reworded to relate specically to the current con-
text of innovative IT adoption behavior.
Pre-testing was conducted by selected managers in charge of IT
procurement in their respective companies. Respondents to the pre-
test were rst asked about their position in the company; if they
were just employees (i.e., below manager level), the questionnaire
stopped automatically. They were then asked to choose one of three
innovative information technologies relevant to the situation within
their organization. If none of the three technologies was relevant to
participants, the questionnaire stopped automatically. This proce-
dure ensured that every questionnaire was completed by managers
of companies to which at least one of the listed innovative informa-
tion technologies was relevant. A 7-point Likert-type scale was
used as the response format for mos t items, with responses ranging
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Some infor-
mation about sales and company employees was solicited directly.
Finally, a pilot test was performed including 110 respondents in
order to validate the measurement items and to reduce potential
ambiguity in wording of the items, questionnaire format, and
instrument length. The pilot test was conducted with the purpose
of removing common method bias. Items were revised based on
respondents understanding, clarity, time required to respond, and
redundancy and attractiveness of the items after the test was per-
formed. For example, as for AM_TECH1, My company clearly
understands innovative IT has been modied to My company
clearly understands the selected IT solution(s) for more clarity.
Respondents in the pilot test were excluded from participating in
the main survey to avoid response bias or learning effect.
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016
 TABLE 1. Operational Definitions the target rms managers in charge of IT procurement by a
professional research institute to give more credibility to the
Construct Operational denition Reference data-gathering process. Moreover, to improve the validity of
SCO Personality disposition of [26, 57] the responses, the questionnaire began with an opening state-
individuals who are particularly ment about the purpose of this research. After reading this initial
interested in how their situation is statement, participants provided information about their job
in comparison to that of others position in their respective companies. If they were not in charge
GC Automatic adoption and pursuit of [3, 21, of IT solutions procurement, the survey stopped immediately.
Moreover, if they were not interested in at least one of the
goals for which others are 38]
innovative IT solutions (big data analytics, cloud service, smart
perceived to strive mobile applications), then they were excluded from the survey.
AM_OTHER Lack of understanding of the [56] In our research, participation in this survey was restricted to
comparing companies such as who managers in charge of IT resource procurement because we were
they are and how they are using a interested in the innovative IT adoption behavior of companies.
selected IT In total, 175 completed surveys from 930 companies were
AM_TECH Lack of understanding of the [56] returned for a response rate of 18.8%. Table 2 summarizes the
nature and usage case of a selected distribution of the respondents from the surveyed rms.
IT
PU Degree to which a person believes [19] RESULTS
that using a selected IT would
enhance his or her job performance Measurement Validation
INT Degree to which a person has [61]
The data were analyzed using PLS (Smart-PLS version 3.0)
formulated conscious plans to and SPSS 20.0. Convergent validity of the scale items was
perform or not perform some assessed using the criteria of Fornell and Larcker [25], who
specified future behavior suggested that composite reliabilities for each construct exceed
FS Firm size in terms of the number 0.80; the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct
of employees exceeds 0.50; and the square roots of the AVE values be greater
SCO: social comparison orientation, GC: goal contagion, than the correlations among the constructs, which conrms that
AM_OTHER: knowledge ambiguity about other companies, more variance is shared between the construct and its indicators
AM_TECH: knowledge ambiguity about innovative technology, than with other constructs. Table 3 shows that the square roots of
PU: perceived usefulness, INT: purchase intention, FS: rm size. all diagonal AVE values are greater than the correlations among
the constructs, indicating that the discriminant validity of all
constructs was satisfactory. Also, Hair et al. [29] stated that a
measure is loaded signicantly on its underlying construct (or
TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics of Respondents and Their factor) if its factor loading exceeds 0.5. In our study, all factor
Companies (N = 175) loadings were greater than 0.5 (see Table 3).
To avoid common method bias, we performed a pilot test
Sample including 110 respondents, after which some questionnaire
composition items were revised. However, we also conducted Harmons sin-
Demographic variables Frequency (%) gle-factor test [48] to test for any residual common method bias
Firm size More than 100 71 40.6 that could still exist in our data sample. In this test, if a substantial
employees (large amount of common method variance is present in the data sample,
sized) either a single factor will emerge from the factor analysis or one
Less than 100 104 59.4 general factor will account for most of the covariance among the
dependent and independent variables [10]. Therefore, we recon-
employees (small and
structed the questionnaire by scattering the questions related to
medium sized) each construct and mixing the items with those for other con-
Industry Manufacturing 40 22.9 structs. The results of an exploratory factor analysis revealed six
Service 135 77.1 factors explaining 83.09% of the variance in our studys con-
Innovative Big data 63 36.0 structs, with the rst factor explaining 49.88% and the last factor
IT Cloud computing 59 33.7 explaining 3.81% of the total variance. This analysis therefore
service showed that our data was unlikely to be contaminated by common
Smart mobile 53 30.3 method bias.
applications We next tested the reliability of the constructs. According to
Wortzel [62], Cronbachs coefcients in Table 3 indicate
adequate reliability. In the reliability analysis for this study, the
Cronbachs coefcient of all dimensions exceeded 0.900,
Sample and Data Collection meaning that the questionnaire dimensions were highly homo-
genous, reliable, and reective of the studys structural dimen-
To collect survey data, we used a list of companies from the sions. The reliability coefcients are summarized in Table 3.
FnGuide 2013, a software tool that lists companies, their nan-
cial data, and contact information. The tool classies companies
Structural Model
in 22 industries according to the Korean Standard Industrial
Code. Among the companies listed in the FnGuide, 930 were
The results of the structural model are presented in Figure 2,
randomly selected and surveyed for 2 weeks by two full-time
including the structural coefcients and R2 values. The R2 values
researchers. The validated survey instrument was distributed to
of AM_TECH, AM_OTHER, GC, and INT were 0.196, 0.234,

Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems 131

 TABLE 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor
Constructs Items loadings T-value CR PU AM_TECH SCO AM_OTHER INT GC
PU PU1 0.823 62.22 0.941 0.762
PU2 0.799 63.01
PU3 0.768 38.35
PU4 0.763 31.56
PU5 0.691 24.73
AM_TECH AM_TECH1 0.889 28.03 0.936 0.531 0.787
AM_TECH2 0.836 41.59
AM_TECH3 0.757 65.79
AM_TECH4 0.661 42.53
SCO SCO1 0.865 88.56 0.952 0.562 0.443 0.871
SCO2 0.854 80.76
SCO3 0.817 52.88
AM_OTHER AM_OTHER1 0.755 45.89 0.931 0.572 0.671 0.484 0.773
AM_OTHER2 0.755 53.49
AM_OTHER3 0.695 28.97
AM_OTHER4 0.682 38.49
INT INT1 0.810 89.63 0.949 0.612 0.529 0.375 0.662 0.861
INT2 0.805 42.67
INT3 0.750 48.67
GC GC1 0.762 51.79 0.910 0.486 0.343 0.496 0.523 0.520 0.834
GC2 0.698 43.16
Eigenvalue 10.47 2.10 1.61 1.44 1.01 0.80
% of variance 49.88 10.01 7.68 6.89 4.81 3.81
PU: perceived usefulness, AM_TECH: knowledge ambiguity about innovative technology, SCO: social comparison orientation, AM_OTHER:
knowledge ambiguity about other companies, INT: purchase intention, GC: goal contagion. Diagonals are the square roots of the AVE values.

0.274, and 0.502, respectively. The standardized path coef- which hires a procurement manager who has higher social
cients indicate the relative strength of the statistical relationships comparison orientation performs signicantly better in curtailing
among the constructs [51]. As Figure 2 shows, all paths were the ambiguity of its knowledge about innovative technology and
signicant at p = 0.01. The results indicate that a company other companies that adopt the technology. Thus, H5 and H6

Knowledge
ambiguity
about
0.213***
0.488*** innovative IT

Social Intention to
comparison
Goal 0.270*** adopt
orientation contagion innovative IT
0.533***
0.443***
Knowledge
ambiguity
about other
company 0.365***

Perceived
usefulness

Control variable
*** p<0.01
FIGURE 2. Results of Hypotheses Testing

132 Journal of Computer Information Systems Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016

 TABLE 4. Testing the Moderating Effect of the Firm Size Variable
Path Large-size firms
R2 Coefficients
AM_TECH INT 0.482 0.138
Notes: 1. The difference column presents the statistical signicance of difference in path coefcients between the two subsamples,
calculated using the procedure in Chin et al. (2003).
2. The R2 reported corresponds to the structural equation INT = GC + AM_TECH.
were supported. In addition, knowledge ambiguity about other
companies was signicantly and negatively associated with goal
contagion (H3 was therefore supported). We also tested factors
affecting intention to adopt innovative technology. The results
indicated that goal contagion based on other companies adop-
tion behavior was positively related to intention to adopt IT,
while knowledge ambiguity about the innovative technology
was negatively associated with intention to adopt IT (H1 and
H2 were therefore supported). Finally, when perceived useful-
ness was included as a control variable, the results reafrmed
that perceived usefulness becomes a positive force in growing
intention to adopt innovative technology ( = 0.365, p < 0.001).
To validate H4, the structural model was tested with each of the
subsamples (i.e., large size rms vs. small- and medium-size rms)
and the path coefcients are compared to highlight the magnitude
of differences between the two sub-groups (see Table 4). The
coefcient between AM_TECH (knowledge ambiguity about inno-
vative IT) and INT (intention to adopt innovative IT) is consider-
ably stronger for the small and medium groups than for the large
rm group, conrming H4. In fact, the structural path was not
statistically signicant for the large rm group.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Theoretical Implications
In this study, a new theory, goal contagion, was utilized to
understand the behavioral intention of managers in adopting
innovative and novel IT. Goal contagion through the observation
of other companies adoption behaviors is common, especially
for early adopters. Early adopters of innovations tend to be
thought leaders in their circles, and they can enjoy rst-mover
advantages [41]. When they have access to several information
sources, early adopters may prefer those that facilitate faster
learning about innovations. Hence, they are likely to collect
information from different providers (e.g., public versus private
sources) and use different means of obtaining that information
[63]. Despite their insufcient knowledge of innovative IT, they
study the experiences of other companies that have completed
the adoption process successfully. These observations are better
explained by goal contagion theory than conventional IT adop-
tion theories. However, rational decision-making may also work
well in the context of innovative IT adoption. In our research
model, we found that perceived usefulness, a control variable,
did affect the intention to obtain new and innovative IT. The
results suggest that innovative IT adoption is better explicated
through the combination of both rational decision-making with
respect to usefulness and bounded rational decision-making in
terms of goal contagion.
In addition, we extended the boundary of goal contagion theory
by revealing that goal contagion is not only applicable to the
individual cognitive domain in social psychology, but also suitable
for research in IT adoption at the rm level (e.g., setting the same
goal with competitors). Goal contagion acts as an important inter-
mediary process which explains the behavior of companies that
adopt innovative IT despite having insufcient information.
Whereas previous research using goal contagion theory has
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems
Small- and medium-size firms Difference
R2 Coefficients
0.529 0.329*** ***
focused on individual-level social group behaviors [44], our work
has showed that the theory also explains the adoption behaviors at
the organizational level.
Third, two kinds of knowledge ambiguity were considered in
this study: ambiguity about innovative IT and ambiguity about
other companies. Previous IT adoption studies have focused on
knowledge about IT [50] and perceived behavioral control over
the use of IT based on knowledge [22, 28]. Knowledge has been
considered as an important external variable that affects inten-
tion to adopt IT [6]. As a result, the benet of knowledge about
other companies (e.g., peers, competitors) has often been over-
looked. In our empirical model, we demonstrate the important
role of such awareness about others (e.g., adoption status, cur-
rent condition of usage, and use cases of selected IT solutions) in
acquiring innovative IT.
Practical Implications
Studies of IT adoption have been conducted on the assump-
tion that adopters make completely rational decisions, but the
fact is that decision-making may be inuenced by other compa-
nies adoption behaviors. If a rm is surrounded by other com-
panies that are successfully using a certain technology (e.g.,
grow revenue and/or prot, strengthen competition), it may
desire to adopt the same technology. Use of innovative IT should
therefore be inuenced by other companies. That is, information
from other companies should be signicant in furthering the
possibility of IT acquisition.
Managers in charge of IT procurement often engage in social
comparison activities (i.e., attending seminars, reading articles,
learning from newspapers and web sites that describe success
cases), which allows sufcient acquisition of knowledge about
other rms in a similar situation. As the results reveal, the more a
procurement manager knows about how other companies use a
technology, the more he/she considers the technology to be adop-
table. At the same time, observing how other companies use a
technology may improve a rms knowledge of the technology
and increase the possibility of technology adoption. Hence, infor-
mation about other companies is an important resource.
As expected, rm size affected the intention to adopt inno-
vative IT. It appears to conrm that the adoption of innovative
IT is more difcult among small- and medium-sized rms than
large rms, due largely to the inherent risks and uncertainties of
the IT endeavor, and the small- and medium-sized rms inabil-
ity to withstand the potential failure of its deployment. For this
reason, small- and medium-sized rms may choose to be fol-
lowers than leaders in adopting such IT. Also, it was said that
managers of small- or medium-sized businesses may not see or
may be unaware of the anticipated benets of IT adoption as
much as those of big rms do [50]. In addition, small businesses
are less capable of employing a CIO or professional IT staff,
who might champion the adoption of innovative IT.
Limitations and Future Research
Some limitations of this study should be noted for future
research. First, only a relatively small set of current technologies
133
(i.e., big data analytics, cloud services, and smart phone applica-
tions) was considered in this research. The characteristics of
these technologies may not be generalizable to all the other
innovative ITs. Future studies may be replicated grounded on
other innovative technologies.
Second, we classied rm size in a somewhat arbitrary
manner in which rms of more than 100 employees were con-
sidered large. The classication may be acceptable to countries
with a relatively small population and limited size in national
economy; however, it may not be acceptable to other larger and
more developed countries including USA, China, and Japan.
This arbitrariness of rm size, therefore, demands that more
studies be replicated to validate our empirical ndings.
Third, the data used in this study were collected from Korean
companies. Cultural differences among countries may yield dis-
crepant results. In addition, as the data were obtained from
senior decision-makers in IT companies, some personal bias
may be present despite that the technologies included in the
survey are global phenomena. Future studies may examine
data from companies in other countries as wellpossibly in a
form of cross-cultural studyfor improved generalization of
ndings. Countries differ in cultural dimensions (e.g., uncer-
tainty avoidance, long-term orientation, individualism), and
this might have signicant implications on the dynamics
among the studied constructs, especially social comparison and
goal contagion.
Conclusion
This study proposed a new theoretical approach to further
comprehension of how companies acquire innovative IT. In
academia, most scholarly research still focuses on the assump-
tion that individuals or corporations make rational decisions
affected by such rational perceptions as usefulness or ease of
use of a technology. However, there is a great deal of potential to
further comprehend corporate behaviors of IT adoption through
other theoretical lens. Among them are social comparison beha-
viors at the organizational level and subsequent goal contagion
that draws goals from the observation of comparable companies
and competitors. Our empirical analysis revealed that, despite
the discussed limitations in research methodology, these theories
bode well in explicating IT adoption at the rm-level.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the International Scholar
Program at Kyung Hee University.
REFERENCES
[1] Aarts H. 2007. On the emergence of human goal pursuit:
the nonconscious regulation and motivation of goals.
Social Personality Psychol Compass. 1:183201.
[2] Aarts H, Chartrand TL, Custers R, Danner U, Dik G,
Jefferis VE, and Cheng CM. 2005. Social stereotypes and
automatic goal pursuit. Social Cogn. 23:465490.
[3] Aarts H, Gollwitzer PM, Hassin RR. 2008. Goal conta-
gion: perceiving is for pursuing. J Pers Soc Psychol.
87:2337.
[4] Aarts H, Hassin RR. 2005. Automatic goal inference and
contagion: on pursuing goals one perceives in other peoples
behavior. In: Latham SM, Forgas JP, Williams, KD, editors.
Social motivation: conscious and unconscious processes.
New York: Cambridge University Press; p. 153167.
[5] Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB. 1996. R&D, rm size and innova-
tive activity. In: Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, editors. Innovation
134 Journal of Computer Information Systems
and technological change: an international comparison.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
[6] Agarwal R, Prasad J. 1999. Are individual differences
germane to the acceptance of new information technolo-
gies? Decis Sci. 30:361391.
[7] Audia PG, Locke EA, Smith KG. 2000. The paradox of
success: an archival and laboratory study of strategic per-
sistence following radical environmental change. Acad
Manage J. 43:837854.
[8] Bandura A. 1997. Self-efcacy: the exercise of control.
New York: Freeman.
[9] Bargh JA, Gollwitzer PM, Lee-Chai A, Barndollar K.
2001. The automated will: nonconscious activation and
pursuit of behavioral goals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 81:1014
1027.
[10] Bhattacherjee A, Sanford C. 2009. The intentionbeha-
viour gap in technology usage: the moderating role of
attitude strength. Behav Inf Technol. 28:389401.
[11] Buunk BP, Mussweiler T. 2001. New directions in social
comparison research. Eur J Soc Psychol 31:467475.
[12] Ciabuschi F, Martn OM. 2012. Knowledge ambiguity,
innovation and subsidiary performance. Baltic J Manage.
7:143166.
[13] Cohen J, Dolan B, Dunlap M, Hellerstein JM, Welton C.
2009. MAD skills: new analysis practices for big data.
Proc PVLD. 2:14811492.
[14] Cohen W. 1995. Empirical studies of innovative activities.
In: Stoneman P, editor. Handbook of the economics of
innovation and technological change. Oxford (UK):
Blackwell.
[15] Cohen WM, Klepper S. 1996. A reprise of size and R&D.
Econ J. 106:925951.
[16] Custers R, Aarts H. 2007. In search of the nonconscious
sources of goal pursuit: accessibility and positive affective
valence of the goal state. J Exp Soc Psychol. 43:312318.
[17] Davis F. 1986. A technology acceptance model for empiri-
cally testing new end-user information systems: theory and
results [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Cambridge
(MA): MIT Sloan School of Management.
[18] Desai VM. 2008. Constrained growth: how experience,
legitimacy, and age inuence risk taking in organizations.
Organ Sci. 19:594608.
[19] Dik G, Aarts H. 2007. Behavioral cues to others motiva-
tion and goal pursuits: the perception of effort facilitates
goal inference and contagion. J Exp Soc Psychol. 43:727
737.
[20] Eikebrokk TR, Iden J, Olsen DH, Opdahl AL. 2011.
Understanding the determinants of business process model-
ling in organizations. Bus Process Manage J. 17:639662.
[21] Festinger L. 1954. A theory of social comparison pro-
cesses. Hum Relations. 7:117140.
[22] Fitzsimons GM, Bargh JA. 2003. Thinking of you: non-
conscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with
relationship partners. J Pers Soc Psychol. 84:148163.
[23] Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural equa-
tions with unobservable variables and measurement error. J
Marketing Res. 18:3950.
[24] Gibboins FX, Buunk BP. 1999. Individual differences in
social comparisons: development of a scale of social com-
parison orientation. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:129142.
[25] GigaOm Pro. 2012. Deploying big data: 2012 strategies for
IT departments. Available from: http://research.gigaom.
com/report/deploying-big-data-2012-strategies-for-it-
departments/
[26] Green GC, Collins RW, Hevner AR. 2004. Perceived con-
trol and the diffusion of software process innovations. J
High Technol Manage Res. 15:123144.
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016
[27] Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. 1995.
Multivariate data analysis with readings. 4th ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[28] Haleblian J, Kim JY, Rajagopalan N. 2006. The inuence
of acquisition experience and performance on acquisition
behavior: evidence from the U.S. commercial banking
industry. Acad Manage J. 49:357370.
[29] Hassin RR, Aarts H, Ferguson MJ. 2005. Automatic goal
inferences. J Exp Soc Psychol. 41:129140.
[30] Hsu CL, Lu HP, Hsu HH. 2007. Adoption of the mobile
Internet: an empirical study of multimedia message service
(MMS). Omega. 35:715726.
[31] Kane GC, Alavi M, Labianca G, Borgatti SP. 2014. Whats
different about social media networks? A framework and
research agenda. MIS Q. 38:275304.
[32] Kim K, Tsai W. 2012. Social comparison among compet-
ing rms. Strategic Manage J. 33:115136.
[33] Klein M. 1998. Small business grows online. Am
Demographics. 20:30.
[34] Kraaijenbrink J, Spender JC, Groen AJ. 2010. The
resource-based view: a review and assessment of its cri-
tiques. J Manag. 36:349372.
[35] Kwon O, Lee N, Shin B. 2014. Data quality management,
data usage experience and acquisition intention of big data
analytics. Int J Inf Manag. 34:387394.
[36] Leander NP, Shah JY. 2013. For whom the goals loom:
context-driven goal contagion. Soc Cogn. 31:187200.
[37] Leavitt N. 2013. Bringing big analytics to the masses.
Computer. 46:2023.
[38] Lee G, Xia W. 2006. Organizational size and IT innovation
adoption: a meta-analysis. Inf Manag. 43:975985.
[39] Liberman MB, Montgomery DB. 1998. First-mover (dis)
advantage: retrospective and link with the resource-based
view. Strategic Manag J. 19:11111125.
[40] Lin A, Chen NC. 2012. Cloud computing as an innovation:
perception, attitude, and adoption. Int J Inf Manage.
32:533540.
[41] Lippman SA, Rumelt RP. 1982. Uncertain imitability: an
analysis of interrm differences in efciency under com-
petition. Bell J Econ. 13:41838.
[42] Loersch C, Aarts H, Payne BK, Jefferis VE. 2008. The
inuence of social groups on goal contagion. J Exp Soc
Psychol. 44:15551558.
[43] McEvily SK, Chakravarthy B. 2002. The persistence of
knowledge-based advantage: an empirical test for product
performance and technological knowledge. Strategic
Manage J. 23:285305.
[44] Newbert SL. 2007. Empirical research on the resource-
based view of the rm: an assessment and suggestions
for future research. Strategic Manage J. 28:121146.
[45] Pannell DJ. 2003. Uncertainty and adoption of sustainable
farming systems. In: Babcock BA, Fraser RW, Lekakis JN,
editors. Risk management and the environment: agricul-
ture in perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer; p. 6781.
[46] Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. 1986. Self-reports in organiza-
tional research: problems and prospects. J Manage.
12:531544.
[47] Pontus LN, Shah JY. 2013. For whom the goals loom:
context-driven goal contagion. Soc Cogn. 31:187200.
[48] Riemenschneider CK, Harrison DA, Mykytyn PP Jr.
2003. Understanding IT adoption decisions in small
business: integrating current theories. Inf Manage.
40:269285.
[49] Salamon SD, Robinson SL. 2008. Trust that binds: the
impact of collective felt trust on organizational perfor-
mance. J Appl Psychol. 93:593601.
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016 Journal of Computer Information Systems
[50] Scherer FM. 1992. Schumpeter and plausible capitalism. J
Econ Lit. 30:14161433.
[51] Schumpeter J. 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy.
New York: Harper.
[52] Sedikides C, Strube MJ. 1995. The multiply motivated
self. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 21:13301335.
[53] Sheng ML, Teo T, Chang SY. 2013. Knowledge barriers,
knowledge transfer, and innovation competitive advantage
in healthcare settings. Manage Decis. 51:461478.
[54] Simonin BL. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowl-
edge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Manage J.
20:595623.
[55] Standage H, Harris J, Fox E. 2013. The inuence of social
comparison on cognitive bias modication and emotional
vulnerability. Emotion. 14:170179.
[56] Suls J, Miller R. 1977. Social comparison processes: the-
oretical and empirical perspectives. Washington (DC):
Hemisphere Publishing Corp. ISBN 0-470-99174-7.
[57] Torres LG. 2012. The role of the group context in predict-
ing college students goal orientations in a cooperative
learning setting: a mixed methods study [PhD
Dissertation]. Austin: University of Texas; p. 1196.
[58] Wang AJ, Wang L. 2009. A review of the research on goal
contagion. Adv Psychol Sci. 6:12571263.
[59] Warshaw PR, Davis FD. 1985. Disentangling behavioral
intention and behavioral expectation. J Exp Soc Psychol.
21:213228.
[60] Wortzel R. 1979. Multivariate analysis. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
[61] Wozniak GD. 1993. Joint information acquisition and new
technology adoption: late versus early adoption. Rev Econ
Stat. 75:438445.
APPENDIX 1. CONSTRUCT ITEMS
Social comparison orientation ([26, 57], amended)
SCO1: As an IT procurement manager, I often compare my
company with other companies.
SCO2: As an IT procurement manager, I always pay a lot of
attention to how other companies do.
SCO3: As an IT procurement manager, I always like to know
what other companies in a similar situation would do.
Knowledge ambiguity about innovative IT ([56], amended)
AM_TECH1: My company clearly understands the selected IT
solution(s). (reverse)
AM_TECH2: My company accurately understands the
selected IT solution(s). (reverse)
AM_TECH3: My company has absolute knowledge of the
selected IT solution(s). (reverse)
AM_TECH4: My company accurately understands impacts of
selected IT solution(s) to the company. (reverse)
Knowledge ambiguity about other company ([56], amended)
AM_OTHER1: My company is clearly aware of which compa-
nies adopted the selected IT solution(s). (reverse)
AM_OTHER2: My company is certainly aware of other com-
panies current condition of using the selected
IT solution(s). (reverse)
AM_OTHER3: My company is well aware of other companies
use cases of the selected IT solution(s). (reverse)
AM_OTHER4:
135
 My company is accurately aware of how other
companies use the selected IT solution(s).
(reverse)
Goal contagion ([21], amended)
GC1: As an IT procurement manager, I come to have a will-
ingness to set a same goal with the comparing company.
GC2: As an IT procurement manager, I happen to set a same
goal with the comparing company.
Perceived usefulness ([19])
PU1: Using the innovative IT improves the quality of the
work my company does.
PU2: The innovative IT enables the employees to accomplish
tasks more quickly.
136 Journal of Computer Information Systems
PU3: Using the innovative IT increases the productivity of my
employees.
PU4: Using the innovative IT allows the employees to
accomplish more work than would otherwise be
possible.
PU5: Overall, I nd the innovative IT useful in my
company.
Intention to adopt innovative IT ([61])
INT1: My company will adopt the selected IT solution.
INT2: My company is likely to adopt the selected IT
solution.
INT3: My company will purchase the selected IT solution.
Volume 56 Issue 2, Spring 2016