Perceived Usefulness Influence on Digital Technology Use Intention: The Moderating Role of Resistance to Change

Revi Kristioni; Agustinus Purna Irawan; Indra Widjaja

doi:10.58905/jse.v6i2.779

Authors

Revi Kristioni Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta, Indonesia
Agustinus Purna Irawan Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta, Indonesia
Indra Widjaja Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58905/jse.v6i2.779

Keywords:

Perceived Usefulness, Resistance to Change, Intention to Use, Digital Technology, Technology Acceptance

Abstract

This study examines how Perceived Usefulness (PU) influences Intention to Use (IU) digital technology, with Resistance to Change (RC) as a moderating variable, among employees of ABC Project. Grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and organizational change theory, the study tests whether dispositional resistance weakens the cognitive pathway from perceived usefulness to adoption intention. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 120 employees involved in the organization’s digital transformation initiative. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares–Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4.0. The results indicate that PU has a strong positive effect on IU (β = 0.634, p < 0.001), while RC exerts a significant negative effect (β = −0.182, p = 0.009). The moderating effect of RC on the PU–IU relationship was not statistically significant (β = −0.006, p = 0.812), suggesting that cognitive value assessment and resistance operate through independent psychological mechanisms. The study contributes to TAM literature by empirically testing resistance as a boundary condition in a project-based organizational context and offers practical implications for change management in digital transformation initiatives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Klein, S.P., Spieth, P., Söllner, M.: Employee acceptance of digital transformation strat-egies: A paradox perspective. J. Product Innovation Management 41(1) (2024).

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8), 982–1003 (1989).

Khaw, K.W., Alnoor, A., Al-Abrrow, H., Tiberius, V., Ganesan, Y., Atshan, N.A.: Reactions towards organizational change: A systematic literature review. Current Psy-chology 42, 19137–19160 (2023).

Cieslak, V., Valor, C.: Moving beyond conventional resistance and resistors: An inte-grative review of employee resistance to digital transformation. Cogent Business & Management 12(1), Art. no. 2442550 (2024).

Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance mod-el: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2), 186–204 (2000).

Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., Stewart, G.: Technology acceptance research: Meta-analysis. J. Information Science 52(2) (2023).

Marangunić, N., Granić, A.: Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society 14(1), 81–95 (2015).

Warrick, D.D.: Revisiting resistance to change and how to manage it: What has been learned and what organizations need to do. Business Horizons 66(4), 433–441 (2023).

Jalo, H., Pirkkalainen, H.: Effect of user resistance on the organizational adoption of extended reality technologies: A mixed methods study. Int. J. Information Management 75, Art. no. 102731 (2024).

Oreg, S.: Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. J. Ap-plied Psychology 88(4), 680–693 (2003).

Gonzalez, K., Portocarrero, F.F., Ekema, M.L.: Disposition activation during organiza-tional change: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 76(3), 829–883 (2023).

Sverdlik, N., Oreg, S.: Beyond the individual-level conceptualization of dispositional resistance to change: Multilevel effects on the response to organizational change. J. Organizational Behavior 44(3) (2023).

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478 (2003).

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2022).

Fakhri, H.N., Nurlina, S., Ilyas, M.: Pengaruh persepsi kemudahan dan persepsi manfaat terhadap minat menggunakan aplikasi mobile banking. Asset: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Perbankan 11(1), 1–12 (2022).

Hair, J.F., Alamer, A.: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Re-search Methods in Applied Linguistics 1(3), Art. no. 100027 (2022).

Becker, J.-M., Cheah, J.-H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM's most wanted guidance. Int. J. Contemporary Hospitality Management 35(1), 321–346 (2023).

Ahmad, T., Bhat, S.A.: Exploring the effect of mobile devices on assessment workflow: A PLS-SEM approach. Smart Learning Environments 10(1), 1–18 (2023).

Cheah, J.-H., Magno, F., Cassia, F.: Reviewing the SmartPLS 4 software: The latest features and enhancements. J. Marketing Analytics 12(1), 97–107 (2024).

Cheung, G.W., Cooper-Thomas, H.D., Lau, R.S., Wang, L.C.: Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific J. Management 41(2), 745–783 (2024).

Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Pick, M., Liengaard, B.D., Radomir, L., Ringle, C.M.: Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing 39(5), 1035–1064 (2022).

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P.: Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Applied Psychology 88(5), 879–903 (2003.