Index of Paper Presentations for the Parallel Sessions - Academy of ...

Do (How) Digital Natives Adopts A New Technology Differently than Digital Immigrant? ALongitudinal Comparison of Four Competing Theoretical ModelsAnkit Kesharwani, Daniel Sherrell, Makam Balaji and Nitin GuptaABSTRACTBased on their comfort level with the digital world, digital users can be classified as either digitalimmigrants or digital natives (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008). Digital immigrants (DI) are those who started using digitaldevices or technology at some stage in their adult lives, while digital natives (DN) are users who were born into adigital world after 1977 (Tapscott, 2009). The existing research typically focuses on tech-savvy young adults (i.e.,DN) and has spent little effort trying to understand increasingly tech-savvy adults (i.e. DI). The objective of thestudy is to investigate the relative effectiveness of four competing theoretical models (e.g., Theory of PlannedBehavior) of attitudeintention formation in explaining and comparing the continued new technology usage intentionsof DN and DI. Using a three-wave panel model, this study will enable us to assess the effectiveness of eachtheoretical model at each of three time periods to predict these two digital-familiar groups‘ intentions for continuedtechnology use as well as assess the ability of the four psychological processes noted above to explain continuedtechnology use behavior over time.1. INTRODUCTIONEvery generation is shaped by the major developments and movements of its time. For this current young generation,it‘s digital devices and social networking. Recent reports and trends have shown that current generation youngpeople study, work, write, and interact with each other in a very different ways than the ways their ancestor hadgrown up. Major aspects of current generation young people lives like social interactions, friendships, civic activitiesare mediated through digital devices.This generation is not just different in behavior; they have been labeled with differing designations:Born Digital, Digital Young, Millennials, Next Generation, Echo Boomers, Net Gen, Screenagers, Bebo Generation,Google Generation, MySpace Generation, Gen Y, First Digitals, Generation Z, Generation I, Internet Generation, oriGeneration. But the dubbing that is successful in invoking the maximum number of hits in the literature andtriggered research is Digital Natives. Digital natives prefer to read blogs on computers, to listen music from digitalmusic players, to watch videos and to play games on internet and mobile, etc. For them camera means digital cameraand wall means Facebook wall. Social psychologists have found that people who grow up in different cultures do notjust think about different things, they actually think differently (Hayles, 2007; Nisbett 2004). Therefore, the digitalenvironment and culture in which digital natives are being raised may affect their thought processes. Unlike theirancestors, for these generations, any new product/services dealing with digital technology seem familiar and theytend to accept them. So, in spite of the fact that adoption of an e-service is crucial for its success, it does notguarantee the desired managerial outcome except the use continues for current generations. However, explainingconsumer acceptance of new e-Service is often described as one of the most researched areas in the contemporaryecommerce literature, little systematic effort has done to provide insight into continued IS use over time. Theobjective of this study is to compare longitudinal models of four competing theoretical models of innovationadoption. The each proposed longitudinal model is a unified framework that sheds light on four differentmechanisms underlying post-adoption phenomena; (1) the processes suggested by the competing theoretical modelitself, (2) sequential updating mechanisms, (3) feedback mechanisms, and (4) repeated behavioral patterns. Thelongitudinal models would be empirically compared among themselves in the context of continued usage in e-services setting.