Knowledge Management Research (지식경영연구)

The Knowledge Management Society of Korea (한국지식경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Role of Ambivalence to Technology Adoption: Focusing on Metaverse Service Providers

양가적 감정이 신기술 기반 서비스 도입에 미치는 영향: 메타버스 서비스 제공자를 중심으로

  • Received : 2023.07.05
  • Accepted : 2023.08.16
  • Published : 2023.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With the development of information technology, new technologies to be introduced in each industry are continuously increasing. This study aims to verify the influence of ambivalent emotions experienced when encountering new technologies, the coping strategies they induce, and their impact on the decision-making process of technology adoption Specifically, this research investigates the emotions and responses to new technologies in the situational context where service providers must deliver services based on new technology in environments where no such services have been developed previously. Furthermore, it seeks to verify the influence of coping responses on the intention to use services based on new technologies. To this end, this study investigated the ambivalent emotions and coping responses of financial sector workers to new financial services based on metaverse technology. As a result of the analysis ambivalance had a significant effect on all four coping responses (disengagement-oriented coping, denial, indecision and compromise). Among them, denial, which is an inflexible response, and compromise, which is a flexible response, had a significant positive effect on the intention to use, and disengagement-oriented coping and indecision had a significant negative effect on the intention to use. The results of this study confirm the user's metaverse acceptance factor and user-centered influence, and are expected to provide guidelines for the introduction of services to practical workers with academic significance.

정보기술의 발전으로 각 산업 분야에서 도입해야 하는 신기술이 지속적으로 증가하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 신기술을 접하게 될 때 느끼는 양가적 감정이 어떠한 대처 전략을 유발하고 기술 도입 의사 결정에 미치는 영향은 무엇인지 검증하고자 한다. 본 연구에서는 서비스 제공자들이 서비스가 개발되지 않은 환경에서 새로운 기술을 기반으로 서비스를 제공해야 하는 상황적 맥락에서 신기술에 대한 감정과 이에 대한 대처전략을 연구하고자 한다. 나아가 대처전략에 의한 신기술 기반 서비스 사용 의도에 미치는 영향을 검증하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여, 본 연구에서는 금융권의 메타버스 서비스 도입 계획을 기반으로 새로운 금융 서비스에 대해 금융권 종사자가 느끼는 양가적 감정과 대처전략을 조사하였다. 분석 결과, 양가적 감정은 4가지 대처전략(회피, 부정, 우유부단함, 그리고 타협)에 모두 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이 중 비유연한 대처반응인 부정, 유연한 대처반응인 타협은 사용 의도에 정의 유의미한 영향을 미치고, 회피와 우유부단함은 사용 의도에 부의 유의미한 영향을 주었다. 본 연구의 결과는 서비스 제공자의 메타버스 수용 요인 및 사용자 중심의 영향력을 확인한 연구로 학문적 의의를 가지고 실무 종사자들에게 서비스 도입에 대한 가이드라인을 제공할 것으로 기대한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구는 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구결과로 수행되었음(NRF-2019S1A3A2099973)

References

  1. 구본성, 이대기 (2022). 국내은행의 플랫폼 전략: 현황과 전망. 기타보고서, 2022(4), 1-65.
  2. 노희옥, 이상준 (2015). 지각된 IT 위협이 정보시스템 생산성에 미치는 영향. 정보기술아키텍처연구, 12(2), 207-217.
  3. 류성한, 윤혜정, 박재현, 장영훈 (2022). 메타버스 개념 및 현황에 대한 논의와 향후 연구 방향 제안. 지식경영연구, 23(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.15813/KMR.2022.23.2.001
  4. 문승혁 (2022). 메타버스의 발전과 적용이 산업과 사회에 미치는 영향. The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology, 8(3), 515-520. https://doi.org/10.17703/JCCT.2022.8.3.515
  5. 손창용, 박현선, 김상현 (2022). 금융 마이데이터 서비스 특성과 수용의도의 관계: 개인혁신성과 기술적 보안성의 조절효과. 지식경영연구, 23(4), 133-157. https://doi.org/10.15813/KMR.2022.23.4.007
  6. 신건권 (2018). SmartPLS3.0 구조방정식모델링. 서울: 도서출판 청람.
  7. 오지희 (2022). 대학생의 메타버스 이용 동기가 만족도와 지속이용의도에 미치는 영향: 가상세계 메타버스를 중심으로. 한국엔터테인먼트산업학회논문지, 16(2), 1-17.
  8. 이관섭, 우종필, 임설아 (2020). 인공지능 (AI) 스피커 이용의향에 영향을 미치는 요인 연구: 확장된 기술수용 모델 (E-TAM)을 중심으로. 융복합지식학회논문지, 8(4), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.22716/SCKT.2020.8.4.036
  9. 이민규, 박희준 (2019). 챗봇 사용 의도에 영향을 미치는 요인 탐색-금융 서비스에서의 챗봇. 품질경영학회지, 47(4), 755-765. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2019.47.4.755
  10. 이병권 (2021). 메타버스 (Metaverse) 세계와 우리의 미래. 한국콘텐츠학회지, 19(1), 13-17.
  11. 이은경, 전중옥, 최욱희 (2021). 온라인 쇼핑환경에서 양가감정 유발에 따른 소비자 반응 및 영향요인에 관한 연구. 관광연구저널, 35(8), 189-201.
  12. 이재광, 김종무, 이강은, 윤소라, 조현 (2017). 핀테크 수용에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구: 모바일 결제 서비스를 중심으로. 지식경영연구, 18(3), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.15813/KMR.2017.18.4.008
  13. 이한신, 김판수 (2019). 소비자의 기술수용과 저항이 인공지능 (AI) 사용의도에 미치는 영향. 경영학연구, 48(5), 1195-1219.
  14. 전동석, 방성철 (2022). 온택트 시대 무역의 변화와 온라인 전시회 활용에 관한 연구. 무역상무연구, 94, 121-143.
  15. 조영현, 이승주 (2021). 메타버스와 보험산업. KIRI 리포트 (포커스), 531, 1-8.
  16. Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453-1478. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0909
  17. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
  18. Biener, V., Kalamkar, S., Nouri, N., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Dudley, J. J., Hu, J., Kristensson, P. O., Weerasinghe, M., & Pucihar, K. C. (2022). Quantifying the effects of working in VR for one week. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(11), 3810-3820. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3203103
  19. Boo, C., & Suh, A. (2022, November). Identifying metaverse characteristics and their influence on continuance intention: Evidence from Zepeto, Roblox, and Ifland. In KMIS International Conference, 134-140.
  20. Calvete, E., Corral, S., & EstEvez, A. (2007). Cognitive and coping mechanisms in the interplay between intimate partner violence and depression. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(4), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701628850
  21. Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol' too long: Consider the brief cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92-100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6
  22. Chen, C. C., Chang, C. H., & Hsiao, K. L. (2022). Exploring the factors of using mobile ticketing applications: Perspectives from innovation resistance theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 67, 102974.
  23. Chouk, I., & Mani, Z. (2019). Factors for and against resistance to smart services: Role of consumer lifestyle and ecosystem related variables. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4), 449-462.
  24. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences second edition Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NJ.
  25. Colby, C. L., & Parasuraman, A. (2001). Techno-ready marketing: How and why customers adopt technology. Simon and Schuster.
  26. Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 37-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000012
  27. Cramer, P. (1998). Coping and defense mechanisms: What's the difference? Journal of Personality, 66(6), 919-946. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00037
  28. Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
  29. Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
  30. Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55, 745-774. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
  31. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
  32. Guarana, C. L., & Hernandez, M. (2016). Identified ambivalence: When cognitive conflicts can help individuals overcome cognitive traps. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 1013.
  33. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
  34. Harrist, S. (2006). A phenomenological investigation of the experience of ambivalence. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 37(1), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916206778150411
  35. Hong, D., & Cho, C. H. (2023). Factors affecting innovation resistance of smartphone AI voice assistants. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(13), 2557-2572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2080899
  36. Jasperson, J., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 525-557. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148694
  37. Koletzko, S. H., Herrmann, M., & BrandstEtter, V. (2015). Unconflicted goal striving: Goal ambivalence as a mediator between goal self-concordance and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 140-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214559711
  38. Koohang, A., Nord, J. H., Ooi, K. B., Tan, G. W. H., Al-Emran, M., Aw, E. C. X., Baabdullah, A. M., Buhalis, D., Cham, T. H., & Dennis, C. (2023). Shaping the metaverse into reality: A holistic multidisciplinary understanding of opportunities, challenges, and avenues for future investigation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(3), 735-765.
  39. Laukkanen, T. (2016). Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2432-2439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.013
  40. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
  41. Maier, C., Laumer, S., Wirth, J., & Weitzel, T. (2019). Technostress and the hierarchical levels of personality: A two-wave study with multiple data samples. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(5), 496-522.
  42. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623-626. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623
  43. Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337-1357. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806
  44. Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 157.
  45. Nohlen, H. U., Van Harreveld, F., & Cunningham, W. A. (2019). Social evaluations under conflict: Negative judgments of conflicting information are easier than positive judgments. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 14(7), 709-718.
  46. Nordgren, L. F., Van Harreveld, F., & Van Der Pligt, J. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 252-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.004
  47. Ouvrein, G., Jorge, A., Cabral, J., & Vandebosch, H. (2023). Coping comes with the job: An exploratory study into the selection and use of coping strategies for online aggression among social media influencers. Telematics and Informatics Reports, 10, 100052.
  48. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
  49. Park, K., & Koh, J. (2017). Exploring the relationship between perceived pace of technology change and adoption resistance to convergence products. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.017
  50. Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456-493. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667106
  51. Pratt, M. G., & Doucet, L. (2000). 11 ambivalent feelings in organizational relationships. Emotion in Organizations, 204.
  52. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431.
  53. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 19.
  54. Qahri-Saremi, H., & Montazemi, A. R. (2019). Factors affecting the adoption of an electronic word of mouth message: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 969-1001.
  55. Qahri-Saremi, H., & Turel, O. (2020). Ambivalence and coping responses in post-adoptive information systems use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(3), 820-848. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2020.1790193
  56. Rees, L., Rothman, N. B., Lehavy, R., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2013). The ambivalent mind can be a wise mind: Emotional ambivalence increases judgment accuracy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 360-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.017
  57. Roberts, N., Mellott, M., Dinger, M., & Campbell, D. (2016). Electronic medical record system avoidance in a turbulent environment. Information & Management, 53(5), 581-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.01.003
  58. Rothman, N. B., Pratt, M. G., Rees, L., & Vogus, T. J. (2017). Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 33-72. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0066
  59. Sheng, H., Nah, F. F. H., & Siau, K. (2008). An experimental study on ubiquitous commerce adoption: Impact of personalization and privacy concerns. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(6), 1.
  60. Stein, M. K., Newell, S., Wagner, E. L., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). Coping with information technology. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 367-392.
  61. Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2005). The daily life of the gardenvariety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality, 73(6), 1485-1510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00356.x
  62. Turel, O. (2015). Quitting the use of a habituated hedonic information system: A theoretical model and empirical examination of Facebook users. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(4), 431-446. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.19
  63. Van Harreveld, F., Nohlen, H. U., & Schneider, I. K. (2015). The ABC of ambivalence: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of attitudinal conflict. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 285-324). Elsevier.
  64. Van Harreveld, F., Rutjens, B. T., Rotteveel, M., Nordgren, L. F., & Van Der Pligt, J. (2009). Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling tense before jumping off the fence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 167-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.015
  65. Van Harreveld, F., Van der Pligt, J., & De Liver, Y. N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308324518
  66. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-SchrEder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650284
  67. Wu, J., Lin, K., Lin, D., Zheng, Z., Huang, H., & Zheng, Z. (2023). Financial crimes in Web3-empowered metaverse: Taxonomy, countermeasures, and opportunities. IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, 4, 37-49.
  68. Wikipedia. (2016). http://www.wikipedia.org/
  69. 금융결제원 (2022). https://www.kftc.or.kr/kftc/data/EgovkftcDataDetail.do
  70. 김도형, 김자현, 박민우 (2022, 8월 20일). 메타버스 은행서 재테크 상담...얼굴인식 AI로 실명 인증. 동아일보, https://www.donga.com/news/View?gid=115039506&date=20220820
  71. 산업연구원 (2020). https://www.kiet.re.kr/research/issueView?issue_no=721
  72. 삼정KPMG (2021). https://kpmg.com/kr/ko/home/insights/2021/01/kr-insight-73.html
  73. 이정윤 (2021, 7월 19일). '메타버스 은행' 곧 나온다...은행권, 가상세계 프로젝트 가속화. 뉴스핌, https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20210719000733
  74. 정민하 (2022, 8월 16일). 독도에 가상지점 내고, 가상공간 청약까지...시중은행 메타버스 체험해보니. 조선비즈, https://biz.chosun.com/stock/finance/2022/08/16/RMOLSHQ7EBALFEXJ7LKISMOH4Y/
  75. 하나은행금융연구소 (2021). http://www.hanaif.re.kr/boardDetail.do?hmpeSeqNo=34779
  76. Morgan, J. P. (2022). Opportunities in the metaverse. ONYX. https://www.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm/treasury-services/documents/opportunities-in-themetaverse.pdf
  77. Rupantar, & Jemima. (2022). https://www.verdict.co.uk/what-is-the-metaverse/