Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15813/kmr.2020.21.4.012

The Influence of Perceived Risk and Technology Trust on the Intention to Adopt New Technology Products: A Mediated Moderation Model of Optimistic Bias  

Kim, Namhee (Dankook University, Department of Administrative Management)
Song, Hojoon (Dankook University, Department of Administrative Management)
Chun, Sungyong (Dankook University, Department of Administrative Management)
Publication Information
Knowledge Management Research / v.21, no.4, 2020 , pp. 227-241 More about this Journal
Abstract
In the acceptance of new technology products, not only the characteristics of the product itself, but also the consumer's psychological perception of the product has a great influence. This study analyzed the effects of psychological variables such as perceived risk, technology trust, and optimistic bias on consumers' intention to accept new technology products. This study selected nanotechnology, and we found consumers with high perceived risk showed relatively low intent to accept nanotechnology products compared to consumers with high perceived risk. However, in case of high level of technology trust, consumers with high perceived risk did not show any significant difference in the intention to accept nanotechnology products. We also found that such moderating effect of technology trust is mediated by optimistic bias. We hope that the findings of this study can give meaningful implications to nanotechnology developers, marketers, and policy makers in nanotechnology industry.
Keywords
Perceived Risk; Technology Trust; Optimistic Bias; New Product Adoption; Nanotechnology;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김원제, 송해룡, 김찬원 (2016). Effects of publics' technology risk characteristics and trust on risk perception, risk acceptability: Focused on nano technology. 한국위기관리논집, 12(1), 69-81.
2 박희제 (2013). 유전자변형식품에 대한 한국인의 인식과 수용도. 농촌사회, 23(1), 327-367.
3 배성훈, 강상규, 김준현, 정연주, 이동환, 천성용, 송호준, 김남희 (2017). 지각된 위험이 나노기술 제품 수용의도에 미치는 영향: 기관, 사람, 기술 신뢰의 조절효과를 중심으로. 한국경영과학회지, 42(3), 51-69.   DOI
4 배성훈, 강상규, 이동환, 천성용, 김남희, 송호준 (2017). 나노기술에 대한 소비자 지식 및 수용의도 탐색 연구. 지식경영연구, 18(3), 125-145.   DOI
5 배성훈, 신광민, 윤진선, 강상규, 김준현, 성기완, 이기광 (2015). 컨조인트 분석을 이용한 나노기술의 부정적 영향에 대한 일반인과 전문가의 인식분석. 한국산업경영시스템학회지, 38(3), 49-55.
6 송해룡, 김원제 (2015). 다차원적 접근을 통한 원자력발전소에 대한 신뢰가 위험인식 및 위험수용에 미치는 효과. 정치커뮤니케이션연구, 36, 37-60.
7 신우찬, 안현철 (2019). 클라우드 컴퓨팅 서비스의 혁신특성, 테크노스트레스가 혁신저항 및 수용의도에 미치는 영향: 공공부문 도입을 중심으로. 지식경영연구, 20(2), 59-86.   DOI
8 유현정, 송유진 (2016). 식품소비자의 낙관적 편향이 불안감에 미치는 효과분석. 한국위기관리논집, 12(6), 103-114.
9 이민영 (2016). 낙관적 편향의 형성과 대처행동 의도: 일본방사능 위험을 중심으로. 미디어 경제와 문화, 14(1), 85-123.
10 이민영, 나은영 (2015). 트위터의 일본 방사능 위험 정보가 낙관적 편향에 미치는 영향: 집단주의 성향의 조절적 역할을 중심으로. 한국언론학보, 59(6), 339-362.
11 이진명, 박서니, 나종연 (2017). 스마트워치에 대한 소비자의 혁신저항과 수용의도: 효용.비용 인식에 따른 소비자유형을 중심으로. 소비자학연구, 28(2), 111-132.
12 이현주, 이영애 (2011). 원자력 발전소와 방폐장 낙인의 심리적 모형: 신뢰와 감정, 지식을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 30(3), 831-851.
13 이형권 (2016). 조절분석과 조절된 매개분석 및 매개된 조절분석의 오해와 진실. 관광연구, 31(3), 213-248.
14 피용호 (2009). 나노물질의 위험성 및 나노물질 피해에 관한 법적 대응의 방향. 과학기술법연구, 15(1), 3-48.   DOI
15 정선호, 서동기 (2016). 회귀분석을 이용한매개된 조절효과와 조절된 매개효과 검증 방법. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 35(1), 257-282.
16 조인제, 김선규, 양성병 (2015). 개인용 클라우드 컴퓨팅 서비스 수용저항에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구. 지식경영연구, 16(1), 117-142.   DOI
17 지광석, 하정철 (2012). 신기술의 불확실성과 소비자안전에 대한 고찰: 나노기술을 중심으로. 소비자문제연구, 8(42), 1-25.
18 Bettman, J. R. (1973). Perceived risk and its components: A model and empirical test. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(2), 184-190.   DOI
19 Chapin, J. R. (2000). Third-person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority at-risk youth. Communication Research, 27(1), 51-81.   DOI
20 Cho, H., Lee, J. S., & Chung, S. (2010). Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 987-995.   DOI
21 Cox, D. F., & Rich, S. U. (1964). Perceived risk and consumer decision-making: The case of telephone shopping. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(4), 32-39.   DOI
22 Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.   DOI
23 Dowling, G., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119-130.   DOI
24 Flynn, J., W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high‐level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12(3), 417-429.   DOI
25 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.   DOI
26 Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderly, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16, 473-486.   DOI
27 Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. The Guilford Press, New York.
28 Hoorens, V., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Social comparison of health risks: Locus of control, the person-positivity bias, and unrealistic optimism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(4), 291-302.   DOI
29 Jacoby, J., & Kaplan, L. B. (1972). The components of perceived risk. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, 10, 382-393.
30 Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Todd, P. A. (1996). Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the world wide web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(2), 59-88.   DOI
31 Kos, J. M., & Clarke, V. A. (2001). Is optimistic bias influenced by control or delay? Health Education Research, 6(5), 533-540.
32 Krimsky, S. (1992). The role of theory in risk studies. In Krimsky, S., & Golding, D. (Eds.) Social theories of risk (pp. 3-23). Praeger, New York.
33 Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.   DOI
34 Nel, A., Xia, T., Madler, L., & Li, N. (2006). Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science, 311(5761), 622-627.   DOI
35 Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101-134.   DOI
36 Ram, S. (1987). A model of innovation resistance. Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1), 208-212.
37 Perloff, L. S. (1987). Social comparison and illusions of invulnerability to negative life events. In C. R. Snyder & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Coping with negative life events: Clinical and social psychological perspectives (pp. 217-242). Plenum, NY.
38 Peter, J. P., & Tarpey, L. X. (1975). A comparative analysis of three consumer decision strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(1), 29-37.   DOI
39 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20-24.
40 Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social implication of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41 Rogers, E. M. (2003). Elements of diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press, New York.
42 Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New York.
43 Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713-720.   DOI
44 Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675-682.   DOI
45 Solomon, M. R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
46 Thiesse, F. (2007). RFID, privacy and the perception of risk: A strategic framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 12(6), 214-232.   DOI
47 Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806-820.   DOI
48 산업통상자원부 (2019). http://www.nanokorea.net/bbs/?t=m1
49 Weinstein, N. D., Kwitel, A., McCaul, K., Magnan, R. E., Gerrard, M., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Risk perceptions: Assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychology, 26(2), 146-151.   DOI