Journal of Management Information Systems

ISSN: 0742-1222 (Print) 1557-928X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmis20

The IT Identity Threat: A Conceptual Definition and

Operational Measure

Kevin Craig, Jason Bennett Thatcher & Varun Grover

To cite this article: Kevin Craig, Jason Bennett Thatcher & Varun Grover (2019) The IT Identity
Threat: A Conceptual Definition and Operational Measure, Journal of Management Information
Systems, 36:1, 259-288, DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2018.1550561

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1550561

View supplementary material

Published online: 31 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mmis20
The IT Identity Threat: A Conceptual
Definition and Operational Measure
KEVIN CRAIG, JASON BENNETT THATCHER, AND VARUN
GROVER

KEVIN CRAIG ([email protected]; corresponding author) is an Assistant

Professor in the Paul H. Chook Department of Information Systems and Statistics at
the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College. His work examines the effects of
identity and stereotypes on individual behavior with respect to technology. His
work appears in Journal of Management Information Systems, Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Journal of Business Economics, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, and other journals.

JASON BENNETT THATCHER ([email protected]) is an MIS Endowed Faculty Fellow in

the Department of Information Systems, Statistics, and Management Science at the
Culverhouse College of Business, University of Alabama. Dr. Thatcher’s research
examines the influence of individual beliefs and characteristics on adaptive and
maladaptive post-adoption information technology use. He also studies strategic,
human resource management, and cybersecurity issues related to the effective
application of information technologies in organizations. His work appears in
Journal of Management Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Information
Systems Research, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, and other venues. He has served as President of the
Association for Information Systems.

VARUN GROVER ([email protected]) is the David D. Glass Endowed Chair and

Distinguished Professor of Information Systems at the Walton School of
Business, University of Arkansas. His work focuses on the impacts of digitalization
on individuals and organizations. He has published extensively in the information
systems (IS) field, with over 400 publications, 220 of which are in major refereed
journals. He has been a senior or associate editor of several major IS journals,
a recipient of numerous awards for his research and teaching, and is a Fellow of the
Association for Information Systems. He has been invited to give numerous key-
note addresses and talks at various institutions and forums around the world.

ABSTRACT: As individuals’ relationships with information technology (IT) grow

more complex and personal, our understanding of the problem of resistance to IT
continues to evolve. Current approaches to resistance are based on perceived threats
to work tasks and social structure. This work enhances our understanding of
resistance by developing a definition and measure of the IT Identity Threat,
a new construct that integrates social, task-related, and personal factors of resis-
tance. Grounded in identity theory, the IT Identity Threat offers a parsimonious
means to explain and predict IT resistance behaviors. Using data from two inde-
pendent studies conducted among students and faculty at a large university in the

Journal of Management Information Systems / 2019, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 259–288.
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN 0742–1222 (print) / ISSN 1557–928X (online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1550561
260 CRAIG ET AL.

Southeastern United States, we validate an operational measure of IT Identity

Threat as a second-order construct and demonstrate that it successfully predicts
resistance to IT. Our findings provide support for the IT Identity Threat construct as
a simple mechanism to study resistance to IT.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: IT Identity, Identity Theory, Resistance to IT, Self-Esteem,
Identity Threat.

Introduction
The faculty meeting has ended and Professor Patricia Nims is not happy. The
department is adopting “online teaching,” and starting with the next fall
semester, all faculty will be required to teach at least three credit hours
per year through an online classroom management system instead of lecturing
in person. “Professor Pat,” as her students call her, sees this as a major threat
to the way she lives her life as a faculty member. Will online lectures give the
university administration the capacity to record and distribute her most valu-
able work? And what will that do to her value as a professor, once a database
of her lectures is available online? Will she still be able to achieve the level of
excellence she is famous for, when she is forced to interact through an online
tool? Moreover, Professor Pat feels that using online tools to communicate
reflects a lack of effort. To her, taking the time to talk in person is an
important sign of how much she values other people. Considering this, she
is inclined to avoid and disparage the new system. However, she still loves
her job and believes in her ability to overcome any challenge. Considering all
these factors, what will she do?

The IT Identity Threat is a new construct that offers a theory-driven, parsimonious,

and forward-thinking approach to resistance to information technology (IT) in the
workplace. Resistance to IT is a persistent problem in industry, despite extensive
research in the information systems (IS) field devoted to understanding its causes
[2]. Organizations invest in IT to gain advantage [19]. However, any advantage
gained from IT investment depends on individuals making use of a successfully
implemented IT [1, 40]. Resistance to IT threatens implementation and use, and
thus jeopardizes the value organizations might realize from IT investment. In the
case of Professor Pat, her work experience makes her a particularly valuable
member of her organization. However, her value may be jeopardized by how she
reacts to the online teaching system, because she may not adapt and use the new
system. In this case, the implementation of an IS may harm, rather than help, an
organization.
To understand this issue, IS research has examined the IT artifact’s impact on
work tasks [48], and has also looked at social factors that influence the acceptance
of [41] or resistance to IT [47]. However, studying task-related and social factors in
isolation is problematic, because a given IT’s effects on social structure and on
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 261

work tasks are difficult to parse from one another [54]. For example, it is generally
recognized that resistance to IT is not fully explained by either poorly designed
artifacts or by an IT’s social effects alone [23]. Rather, perceptions of the IT
artifact’s impact on work must be integrated with its social consequences in order
to explain the problem of resistance [52].
Where prior work has extensively examined how to conceptualize and measure
why individuals accept IT, substantially fewer papers have attempted to create
a means to study the social and task-related factors of resistance in concert, based
on a parsimonious and measurable construct. For our approach, we draw from the
rich identity literature and argue that the “IT Identity Threat” is a missing and
critical integrative construct that can explain resistance behaviors. As implied by
the name, this construct and measure is based on how ITs threaten individuals’
identities: sets of beliefs about themselves as worthy members of a social group, as
valuable and competent workers, and as unique and idiosyncratic human beings.
These beliefs determine how individuals assess themselves as people, that is,
determine their levels of self-esteem; thus, a threat to these beliefs may be
a potent source of protective behaviors.
Self-esteem is a long-studied and reliably measurable construct that can be used
to apply theory across a wide range of contexts [84]. The IT Identity Threat offers
a parsimonious measure of the effects of a wide range of perceptions, because it
captures the ultimate indicator of an individual’s perceptions of an IT: namely,
levels of self-esteem as a user of that IT. In other words, the basic premise of the IT
Identity Threat is that individuals realize harm from an IT when they like them-
selves less due to using that IT, and the anticipation of further harm causes them to
resist it. This is a broad premise, but the IT Identity Threat affords a model based on
the integration of the broad range of self-esteem perceptions into a single construct.
Thus, it answers the call for theory that is broad in scope, yet parsimonious in
conceptualization [6].
To realize the IT Identity Threat’s potential to explain individual reactions to
a wide range of perceptions, this study addresses two research questions: “What is
the IT Identity Threat?” and “How can IT Identity Threats be measured?” In
examining these questions, we also assess the predictive validity of the construct
by empirically examining its relationship with resistance. Ultimately, our goal is to
use the IT Identity Threat to explain why people like “Professor Pat” may resist an
IT, and set the stage for a new understanding that may help her adjust her identity
rather than resist the IT.
We begin with an explanation of identity and follow that with a discussion of
threats and resistance to IT. This leads to an explanation of the threat-based
approach to resistance, identity threats, and how ITs can cause identity threats.
Next, we define the IT Identity Threat. Then, we develop a second-order concep-
tualization and measure of the IT Identity Threat based on reduced self-esteem. To
evaluate that measure’s reliability and validity, as well as the second-order structure
of the IT Identity Threat, we then present the results of two studies of individuals
262 CRAIG ET AL.

who have used potentially threatening ITs in distinct contexts. Finally, we discuss
our work’s contributions, implications, and proposed directions for future research
on the IT Identity Threat.

Defining Identity
“Identity” refers to the sum of beliefs held by an individual about who they are
(“self-beliefs”). Identity embodies individuals’ relationships with others, the roles
they hold, and their personal historical narratives [17]. As such, identity is thought
to cause a wide range of behaviors that individuals employ in the attempt to “enact”
identity, that is, perform actions that harmonize with who they believe themselves
to be [3]. Thus, our vignette’s Professor Pat may enact behaviors that harmonize
and reinforce her beliefs about: 1) how she relates to students and other faculty, 2)
how she fulfills her role as a teacher, and 3) her own personal history, which has
culminated in her uniqueness as a human being.
Individuals are thought to hold identities of three types: social identities, role
identities, and person identities [17]. Social identity is the sum of beliefs about the
self as the member of a group (an “in-group,” which may be contrasted with “out-
groups,” or groups the self does not belong to) [38]. Membership in an in-group that
is associated with high levels of power, prestige, and resources causes positive
feelings about the self [91]. Specifically, it raises an individual’s “self-worth,”
reflecting the value they offer as a member of an in-group [17, 21]. Experiences
that confirm beliefs in the power and prestige of an in-group reinforce beliefs that
an in-group is powerful and prestigious. Experiences that confirm membership in
an in-group strengthen beliefs that an individual embodies the power and prestige
of that in-group. As these beliefs grow in strength, perceptions of the self as worthy
and valued grow. Conversely, experiences that reduce individuals’ beliefs in the
power and prestige of their in-groups, or the extent that they themselves embody
the power and prestige of their in-groups, should lower this form of self-esteem.
Thus, levels of social identity are thought to be reflected by levels of worth-based
self-esteem [84].
Role identity refers to the part of the self that is composed of a role the individual
plays in social contexts [86]. For example, an individual who teaches has a teacher
role identity. Role identity is not just the belief that an individual performs a role; it
also encompasses beliefs about how well the individual performs the tasks asso-
ciated with that role (i.e., competence) [13]. This is because the successful enact-
ment of tasks in the domain of a role identity serves as evidence of the validity of
that role identity [17, 82]. It may help to imagine an individual who holds
a computer programmer identity. Successfully completing coding projects would
confirm self-beliefs in the programmer role identity, and these self-beliefs would
contribute to perceptions of competence in the domain of computer programming.
Because of this, role identity is reflected by levels of self-esteem based on compe-
tence [21].
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 263

Finally, person identities consist of beliefs about the self that distinguish the self
from others [81]. Beliefs regarding the self as a unique and idiosyncratic individual
make up one’s person identity, and the sum of beliefs and characteristics that
distinguish the self as an individual comprise the idealized self [17]. Individuals
seek experiences that give them a sense of continuity regarding their person
identities, and they try to behave in ways that harmonize with an “authentic self”
that is consistent across contexts [88]. Because of this, person identity is associated
with self-esteem based on how true an individual is to his or her authentic self [84].
A single individual holds many identities; for example, Professor Pat may view
herself as a member of a university faculty (social identity), as a course instructor
and advisor to students (role identities), and as a unique and authentic individual
marked by a friendly demeanor (person identity) [17]. The three types of identity
are summarized in Table 1.
Over time, identities gradually change in a cyclical manner, in response to the life
experiences of the individual. Experiences and behaviors that are consistent with an
individual’s self-beliefs strengthen those self-beliefs, confirming identity and con-
tributing to self-esteem [83]. This increase in self-esteem, in turn, causes individuals
to seek out experiences and behaviors that are consistent with their identities [17].
This is a cycle of self-esteem and identity building; it is valuable, and individuals
work to maintain it [88]. For example, when a student enthusiastically hails the
professor in our vignette as “Professor Pat,” some of Professor Pat’s self-beliefs are
confirmed, and thus her identities are verified and strengthened. First, there is the
recognition of her as a professor, a member of the faculty (social identity), and an
instructor (role identity). Second, the student’s selection of “Professor Pat,” instead of
the more formal “Professor Nims,” is evidence of the friendliness that marks
Professor Pat as a unique and authentic individual (person identity). As a result of
this experience, Professor Pat benefits from elevated levels of self-esteem, and will
thus select behaviors that are likely to result in similar experiences.
By contrast, individuals avoid experiences that conflict with their identities [68]
in order to maintain levels of self-esteem. To extend our vignette’s example, the
idea of online teaching may harm Professor Pat’s social identity as a faculty

Table 1. Types of Identity

Identity Type Theoretical Basis Example

Social: composed of beliefs about the Haslan 2004 [38] Pat is a valued member
self as the member of a group. of the faculty.
Role: composed of beliefs about the Burke 1991[13]; Pat is a great teacher
self as fulfilling a social or work- Stryker and Burke who engages well with
related role. 2000 [86] her students.
Person: composed of beliefs Stets and Burke 1994 Pat is the friendly and
regarding characteristics that [81]; Burke and authentic “Professor
distinguish the individual from Stets 2009 [17] Pat.”
others.
264 CRAIG ET AL.

member, because it involves a database of lectures that could be used without the
presence of an actual professor. Such a database threatens the value of faculty, and
thus reduces Pat’s perceived value as a member of the faculty. Moreover, she may
doubt how well she will embody her instructor role identity through an online
medium: this would reduce the self-esteem she feels as a competent instructor.
Finally, Pat’s beliefs about herself as a unique and authentic individual may depend
on the emotional warmth of in-person communication, as opposed to online inter-
action. Thus, using an online teaching system may seem inconsistent with her
authentic self. As a result of these concerns, she may perceive the online teaching
system as a threat.

Threats and Resistance to IT

Research on resistance to IT often examines why people may view an IT as
a threat, either to work outcomes or to a social group’s status or power. For
example, Marakas and Hornik [57] proposed that fear associated with the
inability to accomplish work with a new IT causes individuals to resist that IT.
In that study, individuals avoided the IT and sought out familiar (although
obsolete) work routines. Similarly, Kim and Kankanhalli [44] proposed switching
costs to a new IT as a threat to a desirable status quo, finding that individuals
resist an IT based on the ratio of the benefits to work outcomes vis-à-vis the time
and effort required to adapt to the IT. They also hypothesized and found support
that colleague opinion of an IT affects levels of resistance to that IT, recognizing
individuals’ desire to conform to their social group. Lapointe and Rivard [47]
offered a perspective that combines social and work-related factors. They found
that individuals may initially respond to perceptions that an IT causes negative
work outcomes, and when enough individuals share these perceptions, a social
factor of resistance emerges.
Some suggest that resistance to IT may result from a two-stage appraisal process, in
which a primary appraisal is made to determine whether an IT presents a threat or
opportunity, and then a secondary appraisal determines whether the situation may be
controlled so that the threat can be averted or the opportunity exploited [8]. From this
perspective, the anticipation of harm to work outcomes or social status causes an IT to
be perceived as a threat to be resisted, while managerial support for an IT makes that
IT seem helpful for career growth, and thus a source of opportunity to be exploited.
The secondary appraisal concerns the individual’s ability to control their situation
regarding the IT. Generally, it is thought that a high level of control is likely to
increase perceptions that an IT may be beneficial and exploited. From a resistance
perspective, however, control over the situation also makes it possible to avoid using
the IT, or to use the IT while resisting change to work routines, thus negating much of
the value the organization likely expected from investment in that IT [11,48].
The IT Identity Threat complements research that focuses on assessments of an
IT as a threat, and advances it in two ways. First, it explains why individuals may
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 265

resist an IT for completely personal reasons, rather than focusing only on the effects
of an IT on social structure and work tasks. ITs are becoming more intrusive and
personal in their use [20]. In an extreme manifestation of this, some firms now
implant computer chips inside their employees [36]. It is easy to imagine that such
an implanted IT may help with some work tasks, but still attract intense resistance.
As technology continues to change how workers view themselves as people, it is
critical that our field develops an understanding of why a technology may be
resisted for completely personal reasons.
Second, the IT Identity Threat expands our current understanding by offering new
avenues for treatment. Existing work suggests responding to user feedback to alter
perceptions of the IT as a threat (or opportunity) and encouraging use by altering
perceptions of managerial support for the IT [44, 47]. However, these treatments
may not always be feasible. In some cases, threatening perceptions of an IT become
established before management can intervene. Additionally, since software
designers must often surrender ease of use in order to implement important features
[29], some systems may, by necessity, be challenging for new users because of the
breadth and depth of the IT’s functionality. Finally, existing works (e.g., that of Bala
and Venkatesh [7]) point to managerial support as a treatment for resistance.
However, negative perceptions of a system may be the result of perceived manage-
rial support for the IT [31, 54]. This happens when individuals see the IT as a tool
that increases management’s control and power at their expense [58]. In this kind of
situation, increasing the prominence of managerial support for the IT may exacer-
bate resistance. The IT Identity Threat expands our current state of research with
identity-based treatments that may be effective even when no managerial interven-
tion is likely to reduce perceptions of threat (as may often be the case). This is
because it is based on the identity threat framework, which is not only explores how
to reduce perceptions of threat, but also focuses on finding treatments for threats
that are inevitable [68].

Identity Threats
In the workplace, many experiences can challenge the self-beliefs that comprise
identity. When an experience contradicts identity, individuals experience a loss of
self-esteem and take action to preserve the self-esteem associated with identity. This
is the nature of the identity threat, defined by Petriglieri as “experiences appraised as
indicating potential harm to the value, meanings, or enactment of an identity” [68,
644].
The pervasive nature of IT in the workplace makes it a potent source of experi-
ences that may comprise identity threats. ITs impact work tasks and social structure,
and can cause individuals to change the way they work and achieve goals. As such,
IT’s change what individuals do. Changing what an individual does may generate
experiences that challenge, rather than confirm, the self-beliefs that comprise
identity. For example, if a hospital adopts an IT, and that IT changes how nurses
266 CRAIG ET AL.

interact with patients, then that IT has the capacity to change the social status of
nurses, the work of nurses, and even what it means to be a nurse in that hospital
[63]. In this way, an IT may change who the individual is, that is, their identity as
a nurse. The new, IT-infused, meaning of “nurse” may not appeal to some nurses.
Thus, an IT may force unwanted changes to the “nurse identity,” resulting in an IT
Identity Threat that would cause resistance to the IT [93].
How individuals react to such threats is described by the identity threat frame-
work [68]. The identity threat framework provides an abstract process model that
explains individual reactions to a broad range of stimuli that conflict with the self-
beliefs that comprise identity. The basic premise of the identity threat framework is
that individuals experience stress from these stimuli, anticipate further stress, and
are thus forced to cope with the source of such stimuli as a threat. As is the case in
much of the threat literature, this framework predicts that individuals will either
resist the source of identity threat or adapt to defuse the source of identity threat
[63]. The identity threat framework has served as a basis for research on a wide
range of topics, such as organizational identification [5] and recovering from
professional setbacks [80]. Information systems research has leveraged the identity
threat concept to theorize about individual reactions to IT. Specifically, it has been
proposed that exposure to an IT may cause a discrepancy between self-beliefs and
workplace reality, resulting in negative emotional arousal that causes a wide range
of behaviors, from resistance to the undertaking of personal change [64]. IS
research has also leveraged the concept of identity threats to explore the challenges
offshoring presents to software developers [45].

IT as a Source of Identity Threat

Per the identity threat framework [68], intergroup conflict, obstructions to identity
verification,1 or changes to identity meaning may harm identity. This harm causes
individuals to experience stress and anticipate further stress based on potential
future harm to identity. To cope with that stress, they take action to diffuse the
source of threat (Figure 1).
Intergroup conflict may cause a group to lose resources and status, and thus harm
self-beliefs regarding the power and prestige an individual realizes from their social
identity as a member of that group. Changes to work tasks that had previously
facilitated the enactment of identity may threaten self-beliefs regarding how much
an individual embodies their role identity. Finally, if the tasks assigned as part of
a job change, then the meaning of that job is also changed. In such a case, the new
meaning of the job may not be consistent with person identity. The result of any of
these experiences would be a threat that causes individuals to respond, ideally by
disarming the source of the threat through resistance [68]. This process is further
contextualized to the domain of IT in the following paragraphs.
In the workplace, intergroup conflict may result from an IT changing the dis-
tribution of power in the organization. Inter-group conflict, one of the hallmark
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 267

Figure 1. Process Summarized from the Identity Threat Framework (based on [68])

sources of identity threat [69], is associated with IT implementations, often result-

ing in the loss of power and prestige associated with membership in a social group
[54]. Social identities are composed of beliefs about the self as an individual
member of a social group [17]. Thus, when an IT reduces the power and prestige
associated with membership in a group, it may threaten the social identity held by
an individual in that group. For example, in one study of physicians who were
asked to use managerial software for a significant portion of their work, physicians
were asked to adjust their job description from clinical physician to “doctor as
manager.” Given the dramatic image of the medical community as compared to the
more prosaic image of managers, some physicians may have perceived their
membership in the “physician” social group as less prestigious and resisted that
change [31]. Likewise, consider Markus’ classic study of an IT’s impact on the
relative power of accountants at different levels in a large corporation, which
describes resistance as the group-level result of the loss of power and authority
by a group [58]. An identity perspective may help conceptualize the same phenom-
enon on an individual level. Membership in a powerful or prestigious group
generates favorable feelings about the self [91]. Conversely, any phenomenon that
reduces the power of a group may cause a loss of favorable feelings about the self
as a member of that group. When an IT causes a group to lose power and prestige,
individuals who identify as parts of that group may experience harm to their own
individual social identities. Thus, the individual accountants observed by Markus
[58] may have resisted the technology because it presented a threat to each of their
individual identities as members of a group.
Likewise, the prevention of identity verification in the workplace may be the
result of an IT’s impact on work tasks. The competent execution of work tasks
provides evidence that an individual embodies the role identity associated with
those tasks. Because of this, the competent execution of tasks associated with
268 CRAIG ET AL.

a work role is critical for identity maintenance. An IT can threaten the compe-
tent execution of tasks while individuals adjust to IT-enabled work routines,
possibly due to the learning curve associated with new work tasks [44]. In the
process of overcoming this learning curve, individuals will experience less
validation of their role identities. In this way, the IT prevents the verification
of role identities; this is a hallmark of identity threat sources [68]. To verify and
thus restore beliefs in competence, individuals may seek to avoid an IT and its
associated work routines, seeking instead to enact other, possibly obsolete, work
routines [57]. For example, in a 2004 study of physicians by Doolin [31],
physicians viewed an IT implementation as a tool of management to increase
efficiency at the possible expense of clinical effectiveness, which is critical to
the physician role identity. As a result, many of the physicians resisted, refusing
to enter complete data into the system and continuing to use their own indivi-
dual PC-based systems. Similarly, Marakas and Hornik [57] described a group
of managers confronted with new IT-enabled work routines. These managers
experienced stress associated with the new work routines. They coped with that
stress by avoiding the new work routines and engaging in obsolete, but familiar,
work routines [57]. From an identity perspective, these managers’ behaviors can
be interpreted as attempts to resume the role identity verification associated with
those familiar work routines.
Finally, an IT may threaten person identity. IT use has been shown to change
person identity. For example, the use of smart phones may influence self-beliefs
about conscientiousness, because smart phones increase responsiveness, as well as
expectations of responsiveness, in communication [20]. As such, ITs can change the
idiosyncratic nature of the individual, that is, change their person identity. Such
a change might not be beneficial, especially if it is not consistent with the idealized
self. It could threaten the continuity that supports the belief in an authentic self and
be resisted, even if it helps the individual overcome an admitted deficiency [88].
For example, an individual who believes that he or she is forgetful may resist the
use of a memory aid such as Google Glass (computer-enhanced spectacles) because
wearing a computer on the face may be too inconsistent with their authentic self.
Rather than become “the type of person who would wear Google Glass,” this
individual resists Google Glass and maintains authentic selfhood.
Similarly, the use of an IT in the workplace may eliminate some of the most
rewarding aspects of work through automation [89] and thus change the meanings
associated with an identity. For example, take a hypothetical case of a workshop
enforcing a rule that woodworkers must use computer-controlled lathes instead of
working by hand. In such a case, using the computer-controlled lathes may change
the meaning of being a woodworker from being one who works with wood, to one
who works with computers.
The identity threat framework proposes that individuals will react to an
identity threat primarily by engaging in protective behavior. Individuals may
attempt to defuse an identity threat by acting or speaking in opposition to the
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 269

threat source [68], and by praising the threatened identity [33]. In the hypothe-
tical woodworking example, protective behavior may take the form of deriding
the quality of the computer-controlled lathe’s output, and of praising the quality
of hand-worked goods.
However, resistance to IT is not the only possible outcome of the IT Identity
Threat. An identity threat may be defused by changing the self rather than trying to
avoid or resist a threat source [68]. Individuals may even adopt a new identity that
incorporates the technology into their work lives [64]. However, the extent to which
individuals will try to change the self rather than resist a threat source depends on
the extent to which they believe they are capable of undergoing such a change, that
is, their levels of self-efficacy for change [68].

Defining the IT Identity Threat

The IT Identity Threat captures what individuals perceive as social, work-related,
and personal threats that cause them to resist an IT. To define this construct, we first
consider its conceptual domain and demark the entity it applies to [55].
Conceptually, the IT Identity Threat is a threat, distinct from other threats asso-
ciated with IT because it is a threat to identity. Prior research has conceptualized
threat as the anticipation of harm [62]. Identity has been conceptually defined as the
sum of an individual’s self-beliefs [17]. Thus, the IT Identity Threat is defined as
the anticipation of harm to an individual’s self-beliefs, caused by the use of an IT,
and the entity it applies to is the individual user of an IT. IT Identity Threats are
evoked when individuals who use an IT anticipate harm to their identities, reflected
by lower levels of self-esteem in their assessment of identity.

Assessment of the IT Identity Threat

The latent nature of identity makes it difficult to measure. The prevailing view
in the identity literature is that individuals perceive changes to identity as
changes in self-esteem, and are not directly aware of changes to identity
[17,21,53]. Identity is a collection of self-beliefs, while self-esteem is the
individual’s judgment of the self, based on those self-beliefs [84]. The self-
beliefs that comprise identities are independent attributes of the self, and each
self-belief contributes to the individual’s overall self-esteem in its own way
[27, 53]. For example, Professor Pat’s self-beliefs of being a valued faculty
member, a good teacher, and a friendly person all contribute to her self-
esteem. Experiences that counter the self-beliefs that comprise identity reduce
self-esteem. Therefore, reduced self-esteem is an indicator of harm to identity.
Thus, measurement of the IT Identity Threat is based on perceptions of
reduced self-esteem caused by an IT.
270 CRAIG ET AL.

Dimensions of the IT Identity Threat, Reflected by Change in

Self-Esteem
The three types of identity are often treated as independent, but related, constructs
[17], each reflected by its own type of self-esteem (worth-based, competence-
based, and authenticity-based) [84]. Because of the breadth of changes that ITs are
known to cause [54], ITs have the power to impact and, thus, threaten, all types of
identity: social, role, and person. Accordingly, the full conceptualization and
measurement of the IT Identity Threat must consider the IT’s potential to harm
identities of all three types. However, the IT Identity Threat’s dimensions do not
reflect a latent “threat-ness” that necessarily causes the loss of all three types of
self-esteem. It is possible for an individual to experience threat when faced with
reduced self-esteem of a single type. Even though a single identity may be related
to identities of other types of identity [17], some experiences are thought to have
effects that vary across types of identities, or only effect one type of identity. This
has been observed in studies of such identity-challenging events as marriage and
childbirth [15] where role identity (e.g., wife) may be affected more than other
identities. Because experiences may not equally affect all identities, they could
differentially affect one dimension of the IT identity threat over another (e.g.,
competence-based self-esteem could be affected more than authenticity-based self-
esteem). Therefore, we argue that the three dimensions of the IT Identity Threat
will not necessarily co-vary across contexts. This is a defining characteristic of an
aggregate second-order construct [73]. Conversely, the indicators of each type of
self-esteem are thought to be reflective [39]. Accordingly, we formally specify the
IT Identity Threat as a second-order formative (aggregate) construct, with reflec-
tive first-order dimensions [73].
The first dimension of the IT Identity Threat captures anticipated harm to social
identity. While social identity is the result of identification with an in-group [38],
changes to the status of that in-group are experienced as changes to self-worth on
an individual level [91]. This is because perceptions belonging to a powerful and
prestigious in-group are reflected by how worthy and valued individuals believe
themselves to be in the eyes of others [21]. Based on this, we propose that at least
part of the IT Identity Threat, as perceived by individuals, would be a loss of self-
worth. Thus, we define loss of worth-based self-esteem as a reduction of how
worthy and respected the individual feels they are as a member of a social group
[53]. Experiences that threaten social identity would thus harm beliefs about the self
as a member of a social group, and beliefs about the self as a member of a social
group are thought to manifest as worth-based self-esteem [78], based on the value
that the individual offers to others [21]. Thus, this dimension concerns a reduction
in the part of an individual’s worth-based self-esteem that depends on beliefs about
membership in a social group [53].
The second dimension of the IT Identity Threat captures harm to role
identity, and is based on how competently individuals believe they perform
the tasks associated with their role identities. Under nonthreat circumstances,
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 271

work routines reinforce identity through the rewards and reflected appraisals
that come with the successful accomplishment of work goals. Individuals then
invest themselves in those work routines in a cycle of work, achievement, and
identity reinforcement [16]. This cycle contributes to role identity, which is
manifested by competence-based self-esteem, i.e., the belief that one executes
their role-based tasks well [21]. An IT that interrupts this cycle of role
enactment threatens the role identity and threatens the beliefs of competence
tied to role identity. Thus, anticipated harm to role identity would be mani-
fested as reduced competence-based self-esteem. Based on this, we define loss
of competence-based self-esteem as a reduction of an individual’s belief in
their ability to perform work [26].
Finally, we propose a dimension of the IT Identity Threat that captures
anticipated harm to person identity. The desire to enact behaviors that are
consistent with an individual’s authenticity, based on “one’s internal or personal
standards as to who one really is” [84, p. 411] is a powerful source of motiva-
tion [88]. When an individual uses an IT that is not compatible with person
identity, that individual is behaving in ways inconsistent with his or her authen-
tic self [16]. Authenticity-based self-esteem reflects the extent to which indivi-
duals see themselves as unique and idealized individuals [14] and would,
therefore, be reduced when an individual believes that he or she has become
less like the idealized self. Thus, we define loss of authenticity-based self-
esteem as a reduction of the individual’s belief in the possession of traits and
personal characteristics associated with the idealized self [16].
Each the three dimensions of the IT Identity Threat reflects the perceptions that
individuals experience when exposed to one of the three threatening phenomena
identified by the identity threat framework [68]. Intergroup conflict reduces the
power and prestige of the in-group, resulting in a loss of the worth-based self-
esteem felt by individuals in the in-group. Prevention of identity enactment
reduces the beneficial outcomes normally experienced from familiar work rou-
tines, and this causes a loss of competence-based self-esteem. Finally, a change in
the meanings that underlie a workplace identity may interrupt the coherence of an
authentic self; this would be perceived as a loss of authenticity-based self-esteem.
The manifestation of these threat sources is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Manifestation of IT Identity Threat

Threat Source Harm Manifestation Perception of Harm

Intergroup Conflict Loss of In-group Power and Loss of Worth-Based Self-Esteem
Prestige
Prevention of Reduced Beneficial Work Loss of Competence-Based Self-
Enactment Outcomes Esteem
Meaning Change Lack of Coherence Loss of Authenticity-Based Self-
Esteem
272 CRAIG ET AL.

Development and Validation of the IT Identity Threat Measure

To develop and validate our measure, we followed guidance from decades of
construct development research in the IS field [25,55,85]. After conducting
a literature search to generate an initial set of items, we carried out a series of
exercises designed to refine the measure. This process concluded with a pilot study
and rigorous tests to evaluate the nomological validity of the measure, along with
tests of its measurement model.

Item Generation and Refinement

Our first step was to find items from previous studies of self-esteem and identity
and adapt them to fit an IT context [16, 20, 30, 34, 39, 53, 77]. To ensure that our
items represent the meaning of our dimensions, we subjected our pool of initial
items to a series of four card-sorting exercises [55]. During each round of these
exercises, a diverse group of judges was asked to assign each measurement item to
one (or none) of our three dimensions [61]. Each judge was given the names and
definitions of our constructs and worked alone, with each of the items written on
individual cards, presented in random order. After each exercise, items that failed to
achieve a moderate level of agreement were either reworded or eliminated [46]. No
judge participated in more than one exercise, and the final sorting exercise was
carried out by 22 judges, the majority of whom were working professionals. The
demographics and professions of these judges were: 8 female, 14 male, aged from
26 to 59; 9 PhD candidates, 1 professor, 4 engineers, 2 small business owners (1 in
retail computing and 1 in publishing), 2 computer programmers, 1 lawyer, 1 auditor,
and 1 executive director of development at a Fortune 50 company. At the conclu-
sion of this phase of analysis, seven items were retained for each dimension (found
in Appendix A).

Pretest and Pilot Test

Following the card-sorting exercise, the remaining items were subjected to
a pretest to evaluate the reliability of our items and a pilot test to evaluate the
conceptualization of the IT Identity Threat [85]. Our population of interest
consists of individuals who 1) would be required to use an information system
and 2) may anticipate harm from that system. We therefore selected a sample
frame of undergraduate students who 1) were forced to use an online portfolio
system in order to graduate and 2) who might perceive social, role-based, and
personal impacts from the use of that system. For our pretest, we collected data
from 200 undergraduate students from a university located in the US.
Qualitative feedback, as well as tests of reliability resulted in a shorter instru-
ment that was then used in a pilot test (see Table 3).
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 273

Table 3. Measurement Items for the IT Identity Threat

Construct Measurement Item Source

Loss of Worth-Based …makes me feel less respected by Fleming and Courtney
Self-Esteem: others in my peer group. 1984 [34];
ePortfolio… …people in my peer group will lose Rosenberg 1965 [77];
respect for me. Burke and Reitzes 1991
…others consider will consider me [16];
to be a poor member of my peer Luhtanen and Crocker
group. 1992 [53]
…makes me feel that people in my
peer group will admire me less.
Loss of Competence- …makes me feel less confident that Rosenberg 1965 [77];
Based Self-Esteem: I understand things well enough Heatherington and Polivy
ePortfolio… to get work done. 1991 [39]; Burke and
…makes me feel less confident Reitzes 1991 [16];
about having the skills needed to Davis 2013 [30]
get work done.
…makes me feel that I have less
ability to get work done.
…makes me feel that I do things
poorly.
Loss of Authenticity- …makes me feel displeased with Rosenberg 1965 [77];
Based Self-Esteem: who I am. Burke and Reitzes 1991
ePortfolio… …makes me feel less like the [16];
person I want to be. Heatherington and Polivy
…makes me feel discouraged with 1991 [39];
who I am. Fleming and Courtney
…makes me take a less positive 1984 [34];
attitude toward myself as Carter and Grover 2015
a person. [20]

Our pilot test (n = 650; sample frame: undergraduate students required to use
an online portfolio in order to graduate from a university in the United States
of America) provided evidence for a conceptualization of the IT Identity
Threat as a second-order construct with three dimensions. The internal con-
sistency of each dimension was supported by Cronbach’s alpha, with all
construct scores exceeding the recommended 0.7 [65]. Regarding factor struc-
ture, a test of competing structural equation models [18] using the software
package EQS found support for a second-order construct with three dimen-
sions. Using a X2/df test of significance, a three uncorrelated factor structure
showed a significant (p < 0.05) reduction of misfit over a single-factor
structure. A second-order factor with three dimensions showed a significant
(p < 0.05) reduction of misfit over the uncorrelated factor structure. Based on
these results, we moved forward with formal studies to validate the IT Identity
Threat as a predictor of resistance to IT.
274 CRAIG ET AL.

Survey Analysis
With our pilot-tested instrument, we next conducted formal studies to evaluate our
measure. Two cross-sectional surveys, consisting of Likert scale measures and
administered via a Web site (Qualtrics.com) were used to gather data in two
separate contexts. Items were identical across the two surveys, except for the
names of the technologies involved. Results across disparate samples contribute
to generalizability [43, 72]; thus, we selected two sample frames designed to
improve the generalizability of our study to our population of interest. Our broad
population of interest includes both students and working professionals, so we
selected the contexts of undergraduate students and of faculty in a large public
university2 located in the US. As was the case in our pre- and pilot tests, the sample
frame for one study (“Study 1”) was composed of undergraduate students who were
required to complete work using a system called ePortfolio in order to receive their
degrees. The sample frame for the other study (“Study 2”) consisted of university
faculty who were required to use a system called iRoar to manage their class
rosters, grade submissions, and other pedagogy related activities.
We selected these sample frames because each was likely to report different
sources of identity threat from their respective mandatory ITs. In the case of
students using ePortfolio, subjects during our pretest and pilot tests expressed
concerns that: 1) the IT furthered the interests of certain administrators (the
“ePortfolio people”) at the expense of students’ interests and was thus a potential
source of intergroup conflict; 2) ePortfolio forced students to use an online publish-
ing system to present their work, and many students found that system to be an
impediment to the enactment of role-based tasks such as making progress toward
graduation and seeking post-graduate employment; and 3) the ePortfolio system
forced students to perform Web development, an activity that may have been
inconsistent with their authentic selves. Students were so incensed by the system
that they organized against it, posting an online petition for its removal that
received thousands of signatures. Approximately one year after the completion of
our data gathering, the university abandoned the ePortfolio system.
Similarly, the iRoar system was perceived by many professors to be a thoughtless
intrusion on the behalf of the university’s administration, limiting their flexibility in
how they accomplished work. In this way, it was the source of intergroup conflict.
It also changed critical work tasks carried out by professors and, thus, may have
prevented the enactment of some aspects of the professor role identity and may
have had the potential to undermine the meaning of “professor” at the university by
changing the work of the professor.
Participants were recruited via an email broadcast sent through university list
services, and were motivated by the chance to win one of four tablets (approximate
value of 450 USD each). After deleting unusable responses (e.g., those with no
items answered) and outliers (see Appendix B for details of this process), we were
left with 2,109 complete and usable surveys (out of an initial total of 2,759) for
Study 1. This represents a response rate of 12.5% of the entire undergraduate
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 275

population of 16,391 during that semester. For Study 2, we received 203 complete
and usable surveys. This represents a response rate of 17.5% of the complete
population of 1,157 faculty during that semester.3 The demographic data for our
subject pools are found in Appendix C.

Evaluation of the Measurement Model

For the sake of establishing nomological validity, we also tested the IT Identity
Threat measure for correlations with similar constructs and as a predictor of
resistance, along with a factor drawn from the identity threat literature [55].
Finally, we tested the dimensionality of our specified measurement model, that of
a second-order formative construct with a reflective first-order [73].

Tests of Reliability
Because our items are reflective, they should all correlate highly within each of our
dimensions [73]. Accordingly, we tested each of the IT Identity Threat’s three
dimensions for internal consistency. Cronbach’s Alpha and Rho [76] were obtained
from confirmatory factor analysis using the structural equation modeling software
EQS [18]; each are presented in Table 4. All are higher than the cutoff of 0.7
recommended by Nunnally [65], indicating that the items for each dimension reflect
common latent factors. The relative strength of correlation between each item and
its construct is indicated by factor loadings, which are found in Appendix D.

Discriminant Validity
The purpose of these tests is to demonstrate the independence of our constructs
from each other. We compared subjects’ responses to the IT Identity Threat’s items
with those of other measures to demonstrate that the IT Identity Threat is a distinct
construct and not a reiteration or mere inversion of the other constructs in its
nomological net [55].
Discriminant validity is tested by comparing the correlations between constructs
with the square root of the average variance explained of each construct obtained

Table 4. Reliability

Study 1 Study 2
Dimension Alpha Rho Alpha Rho
Loss of Worth-Based Self-Esteem 0.97 0.97 0.964 0.96
Loss of Competence-Based Self-Esteem 0.96 0.97 0.943 0.94
Loss of Authenticity-Based Self-Esteem 0.98 0.99 0.977 0.97
276 CRAIG ET AL.

through factor analysis [35, 55]. As seen in Appendix D among the causal factors of
resistance (the IT Identity Threat, Lack of Value, and Colleague Opinion of the IT),
no construct correlation is higher than the square root of any construct’s AVE.

Test of Predictive Validity

The IT Identity Threat should predict resistance to IT, a construct that is often broadly
and inconsistently defined [47]. Most works conceptualize resistance to IT as a form
of individual opposition in the form of passively avoiding the IT and/or actively
campaigning against its implementation [22, 44]. Because the identity threat litera-
ture proposes active and passive resistance to a threat source [68], this research
applies a broad conceptualization of resistance to IT: opposing an IS implementation
by means of signals, actions, and inaction. This construct is based on the works of
Kim and Kankanhalli and also Keen on resistance to IT [42, 44].
Controlling for age and gender, the IT Identity Threat model explained 18.7% of
the level of resistance to IT in Study 1, and 26.3% of the same in Study 2. As
illustrated in Table 5, both of our studies provide evidence of predictive validity,
with the level of resistance to IT increasing with the level of the IT Identity Threat.

Test of Nomological Validity

The IT Identity Threat measure was developed to extend research on resistance to
IT, based on identity threats. Accordingly, it is expected to correlate with known
factors of resistance, and also relate to factors associated with identity threats [55].
For this exercise, we selected two constructs commonly identified as antecedents of
resistance (one positive, one negative) [44], along with a factor from the identity
literature that is thought to reduce levels of threat and resistance behaviors [68].
First, we used the lack of value associated with using the IT, defined as a negative
overall evaluation of the IT based on a comparison between the costs and beneficial

Table 5. IT Identity Threat Predicts Resistance to IT (Control Variables: Age and

Gender)

Details: B Std. Error Beta T Sig.

Study 1: Resistance to IT (Mean: 5.24, SD: 1.51), R2 = 0.187, n = 2109
(Constant) 4.089 0.135 30.283 p < .001
The IT Identity Threat 0.372 0.017 0.418 21.248 p < .001
(Mean: 3.63, SD: 1.70)
Study 2: Resistance to IT (Mean: 2.48, SD: 1.37), R2 = 0.263, n = 203
(Constant) 1.172 0.407 2.879 p < .010
The IT Identity Threat 0.602 0.074 0.5 8.083 p < .001
(Mean: 2.38, SD: 1.17)
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 277

changes associated with the outcomes of use [44] as a causal factor of

resistance. Second, we tested colleague opinion of the IT, defined as the individual’s
belief that their colleagues support the use of the IT, for a negative correlation with
the IT Identity Threat. Finally, we examined self-efficacy for change, defined as the
individual’s belief that they can effect beneficial changes to the self. This construct
was selected based on the identity threat framework’s proposition that individuals
are more likely to adapt the self, rather than resist a threat source, when they believe
that they are capable of undergoing change. Estimated with SPSS v.24, the IT
Identity Threat correlated with lack of value, and negative correlations with col-
league opinion of the IT and self-efficacy for change. All significance factors (“p
values”) were under 0.001. Our construct correlations are found in Appendix D.

Tests of Dimensional Structure

Identity theory proposes that identities may be interrelated across type. That is, an
individual’s social, role, and person identities may each be influenced by the others.
As a construct with dimensions based on these three interrelated types of identities,
the IT Identity Threat may be conceptualized as a single phenomenon composed of
three interrelated dimensions. To evaluate the discriminant validity of each of these
dimensions, as well as between each and the construct of resistance to IT, correla-
tions among them were measured against average variances explained (Table 6).
The average variance explained of each dimension exceeded that dimension’s
correlations; this is evidence that these dimensions are discreet from one another,
and from the construct they are intended to predict.
To evaluate the relationships among the IT Identity Threat’s three dimensions, we
used structural equation modeling to test competing models. A single-dimension
model, three uncorrelated dimensions, and three correlated dimensions were all
measured for misfit using EQS 6.1.

Table 6. Dimensional Correlations and Average Variance Explained

Construct 1 2 3 4
Study 1
1: Resistance 0.884
2: Loss of Worth-Based Self-Esteem 0.315 0.970
3: Loss of Competence-Based Self-Esteem 0.350 0.446 0.968
4: Loss of Authenticity-Based Self-Esteem 0.411 0.461 0.779 0.986
Study 2
1: Resistance 0.882
2: Loss of Worth-Based Self-Esteem 0.361 0.97
3: Loss of Competence-Based Self-Esteem 0.468 0.305 0.968
4: Loss of Authenticity-Based Self-Esteem 0.393 0.432 0.520 0.986
The bold text indicates the Average Variance Explained.
278 CRAIG ET AL.

We tested for X2 difference to evaluate the conceptualization of the IT Identity

Threat as a single multidimensional construct, as opposed to a single one-
dimensional construct or three unrelated constructs. X2 is a numerical indicator of
how paths between constructs fail to reproduce the responses predicted by a model
[18]. The number of degrees of freedom (“df”) for each model reflects the number
of items that are used by the model to predict outcome variables [18]. For each
value that is predicted by a model, the number of degrees of freedom is reduced by
one, but the amount of X2 (misfit) will also be reduced by a level commensurate
with the accuracy of the model. If a model is improved by the addition of paths
between pairs of dimensions (i.e., the correlation of factors), then the ratio of X2 to
the change of degrees of freedom in the model would improve [18]. Based on X2
and CFI difference, the correlated model provided a better fit (p < 0.01) for the data
than did the uncorrelated and single dimension models. Thus, the most “true”
model of the IT Identity Threat may be as a second-order construct [79]. These
results are summarized in Table 7.
It should be noted that CFI scores above 0.9 are indicative of good fit [9] and
RMSEA scores under 0.1 indicate good fit when parsimony is a consideration [12].
Based on these heuristics, Model 3, with its correlated factors, demonstrates less-
than-ideal fit, but good fit when parsimony is considered. In light of the Model 3’s
low RMSEA scores of 0.046 and 0.042 and its improvement of fit over Model 2,
this study supports the conceptualization of the IT Identity Threat as a second-order
construct.

Discussion
To address the research questions “What is an IT Identity Threat?” and “How can
it be measured?” we conceptualized and operationalized a second-order construct
and measure that integrates the social and task-related factors associated with
resistance to IT. We believe that the IT Identity Threat is important due to 1) its
ability to integrate a variety of manifestations of IT on social and work processes
into a parsimonious model of resistance, and 2) its relevance in a world that is
moving toward increasingly personal IT, making it important to understand resis-
tance at the individual level.

Contributions to Theory
The definition and measure of the IT Identity Threat provide important theoretical
contributions to the field of IS, and also to our reference disciplines. As
a theoretical construct grounded in identity theory, with a rigorously tested measure,
the construct offers a broader model of resistance to IT that builds on a tradition of
prior qualitative work. The IT Identity Threat offers a variance-based approach to
resistance to IT that integrates social, task-related, and personal perceptions of
threat, caused by an IT.
Table 7. Dimensionality

Study 1 Model χ2 df* CFI Δχ2 RMSEA ΔCFI

Model 1: One single dimension. 8189.07 53 0.79 0.270

Model 2: Three uncorrelated factors. 1541.184 53 0.96 6647 0.115 0.17

Model 3: Three correlated factors. 277.85 50 0.99 1263 0.046 0.03

Study 2 Model χ2 df CFI Δχ2 RMSEA ΔCFI

Model 1: One single dimension. 1916.22 54 0.18 0.413

Model 2: Three uncorrelated factors. 118.63 54 0.97 1797 0.077 0.79

Model 3: Three correlated factors. 68.76 51 0.99 49 0.042 0.02

THE IT IDENTITY THREAT

*For model fit purposes [18], the error terms between two items (S6, S7) were allowed to correlate, costing one degree of freedom.
279
280 CRAIG ET AL.

The IT Identity Threat deals with the most fundamental element of resis-
tance: the individual. Yet, it also accounts for factors normally treated on the
group level. It is possible to conceptualize the intergroup conflict associated
with threats to social identities according to its anticipated harm on a purely
individual level, that is, according to individual perceptions of self-worth that
are based on group membership [84]. In this regard, it answers the call for
research that reconciles individual-level resistance with group-level phenom-
ena [47].
For the field of IS research, this new construct provides a parsimonious causal
factor that helps explain resistance to IT. Existing process models offer rich insight
into how resistance and other behaviors evolve [59], but such insight may be
expanded by engaging in variance-based research [50]. Variance-based models
afford the opportunity for researchers to explore and collect data for a range of
variables and theoretical relationships [66]. Thus, they afford progress based on the
elaboration of testable models over time [87]. Moreover, because variance-based
research may explore a phenomenon across a variety of contexts, it may serve as
the basis of inferences about the general population of IT users [10,49]. Some have
tried to incorporate numerous varied perceptions that may cause resistance to IT
into a variance-based model. However, to do so without careful integration of
theory raises the risk of “ballooning” explanations and contradictory approaches.
For example, the work of Kim and Kankanhalli [44] used a variance-based
approach, and also explored social factors along with purely individual perceptions
of the IT artifact. However, their work only presents switching costs as the mediator
of a collection of perceptual measures that already have well-studied relationships
with either use or resistance to IT. To provide novel explanatory power requires the
incorporation of novel theoretical logic. In addition, offering a collection of causal
variables with limited theoretical justification for inclusion in or exclusion from
a model may result in models that lack parsimony, as future researchers incorporate
more and more variables [6]. A better approach is one that is parsimonious, with the
simplicity and predictive power of a variance-based model along with carefully
integrated theory from prior process models. The IT Identity Threat recognizes and
integrates a broad range of perceptions into a single construct through their effects
on the individual. Thus, it may serve as a foundation for building a cumulative
tradition in this area.
In addition to integrating social factors with perceptions of the IT artifact, the IT
Identity Threat addresses the emergence of more personal forms of IT. ITs are
evolving and becoming more personal in their use [75], and technologies are now
capable of changing the self in addition to impacting work tasks and social structure
[20]. Thus, future resistance to IT is more likely to be the result of personal factors,
and our field’s understanding of such factors is only just emerging [20]. As a result,
in addition to explaining the effects of perceptions of the artifact in concert with
social perceptions, the IT Identity Threat benefits the field by integrating these
perceptions with perceptions of the self alone.
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 281

Finally, as a measurable identity threat construct, the IT Identity Threat may

contribute to our field’s reference disciplines. Previous works in sociology and
psychology have proposed the existence of identity threats [64, 67, 68, 94].
However, they have offered broad and often conflicting definitions of identity
threats and have not presented any means of measuring identity threats [68]. This
work offers a reliable and valid measure of the IT Identity Threat—the first
operational measure of an identity threat of any type—which expands and comple-
ments the qualitative tradition of identity research. It also informs our reference
disciplines by demonstrating that the three types of identity (social, role, and
person), as well as the three types of self-esteem (worth, competence, and self-
authenticity), are conceptually related and interdependent. The correlations among
our dimensions indicate that while the three types of identity (social, role and
personal) have theoretically independent sources, they may be related. This finding
supports the theoretical proposition that an identity of one type (e.g., a work role,
such as “professor”) is frequently tied to one or more identities of another type
(e.g., a social membership, such as “faculty member”) [60].

Implications for Practice

The IT Identity Threat provides novel insight into resistance to IT; in doing so, it
affords new approaches to treating resistance for management. Existing literature
advises increasing usability [51] and demonstrating managerial support for IT
implementations [32] to encourage system use instead of resistance. In other
words, academics prescribe that management make an IT less threatening or
more appealing to encourage widespread adoption. There are times, however,
when usability improvements may be insufficient to prevent a groundswell of
resistance. For example, doctors in the UK’s National Health Service have resisted
mandated ITs, based on perceptions of those ITs as being part of “big IT” and
instruments of bureaucratic control; efforts by management to encourage use may
have been counterproductive as a result [37].
By contrast, the IT Identity Threat approach prescribes expanding users’ identity,
rather than changing perceptions of the IT, to avoid resistance and even encourage
use. Specifically, when individuals are presented with an identity threat, they may
seek an alternative identity in order to return to a cycle of identity confirmation and
self-esteem growth [68]. For example, when faced with a task that threatens self-
beliefs of competence, individuals may be motivated to learn new skills to expand
the self rather than oppose the task. For example, when an organization shifts work
tasks from a paper-based to an online system, some individuals may initially
experience stress related to how well they use the online system, and how long it
has been since they had held a “learner” identity. Nevertheless, they may be
motivated to become a learner of the online system, if they ultimately believe
that they can become a “master” of the online system. Doing this, however,
however, requires personal change.
282 CRAIG ET AL.

Management should understand that the implementation of an IT may result in

the subjective loss of status, competence, and self-authenticity in the workplace,
reflected by diminished self-esteem among workers. However, they are also advised
that steps may be taken to help workers adapt and build new identities in the face of
a threatening IT. Interventions designed to develop self-esteem among individuals
by building identity have focused on three complementary tactics: reframing,
recalculating, and refocusing [56]. Reframing involves infusing a workplace iden-
tity with positive meaning by communicating the necessity and dignity of an
otherwise less-than-ideal work role. Recalculating involves changing how indivi-
duals measure the value of their work. Rewarding learning goals rather than
production goals may be helpful in this regard. Finally, refocusing shifts attention
toward the positive characteristics of a new or changed identity. This can take the
form of emphasizing a shared identity that allows individuals to provide legitimacy
and social support to each other as they become learners of a new IT together [4].
These tactics may help individuals like the professor in our vignette overcome the
challenge of using an information system by emphasizing the value that learning
such a system provides for their colleagues and organization. In the right light,
trying to learn to use a threatening system may be an expression of esprit de corps,
as members of an organization suffer together to master that system, verifying
social identity. It could also be a demonstration of ability and competence, verifying
role identity. Working hard to learn and help others master the system’s features
may invoke virtues such as perseverance and generosity, verifying person identity.

Directions for Future Research

This work investigates how ITs threaten individuals by changing their work lives
and thus changing themselves. Our field’s understanding of resistance to IT would
benefit from considering individuals who do not want to be changed by ITs. By
introducing a definition and measure of the IT Identity Threat, we hope to take the
first step in broadening our field’s approach in this regard.
Future researchers may leverage the theoretical richness and practicality of the
identity threat framework [68] to pursue valuable lines of inquiry. Avenues of future
research related to the IT Identity Threat include exploring moderators for the
causes of resistance to IT, based on the identity literature. The identity threats are
thought to be mitigated by individual beliefs about the self, such as the perceived
ability to adapt to the threat source, and social beliefs, such as whether other
individuals share perceptions of threat [68]. Thus, while an identity threat may
cause resistance, it may also cause individuals to undergo change [95]. Individuals
who believe they are capable of mastering a threatening IT, and thus mitigating its
associated threat are more likely to eschew resistance in favor of becoming
a proficient user of that IT. For example, Pratt, et al. [74], found that medical
professionals are capable of incorporating unappealing work tasks into their profes-
sional identities, even though such tasks were perceived as “violating” those same
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 283

identities. Similarly, Coppola et al. [28], observed that many university professors
who initially felt threatened by an online teaching system coped by adopting new
“digital Socrates” personas. Thus, the IT Identity Threat may serve as an impetus
for the personal change and learning that is associated with high levels of computer
self-efficacy [26]. On the other hand, if individuals believe that others will collec-
tively resist the source of an identity threat, they may be more likely to engage in
resistance themselves. This is analogous to Lapointe and Rivard’s [47] observation
that individuals are likely to resist an IT when they perceive group-level resistance.
Thus, using insights from identity threat research in concert with our own
literature, future researchers may explore ways to stem resistance and possibly
even leverage the IT Identity Threat as a motivating factor that may cause indivi-
duals to learn to use a threatening IT.
In addition, it is important to note that the studies presented in this work are
limited to two contexts within the broader context of higher education. The field of
IS could benefit from studies based on the IT Identity Threat in different contexts.

Limitations
We employed surveys to collect data across our studies4; thus, the possibility that
our method of data collection was a factor in our results must be addressed.
Accordingly, we examined our data for evidence of common method bias by
evaluating correlations between unrelated marker items (found in Appendix E)
and the measures of our constructs [24, 71]. These correlations ranged from
0.023 to 0.001, indicating that common method bias was not a factor in our results.
We note that the correlation between loss of competence-based self-esteem and
loss of authenticity-based self-esteem in our first study is very high (0.779, see
Table 6). Even in a formative second-order model, however, this may be found
when a level of one dimension can influence the levels of one or more other
dimensions [73]. Person identity is thought to influence the selection of workplace
roles, and role-related experiences are impactful on person identity over time [17].
Thus, phenomena that impact person identity are likely to impact role identity, and
vice-versa [17]. Nevertheless, a comparison with the average variance explained of
each construct (in Table 6) indicates that they are distinct: related, but not the same
thing. Additionally, since our construct’s formative dimensions are correlated, we
estimated variance inflation factor scores of each dimension. The largest of these
was 2.8 (see Appendix F for all scores), which is below the threshold of concern
recommended by Petter et al. [70] of 3.3 for formative indicators.
Finally, we present the IT Identity Threat as a very broad construct that may
explain a broad range of resistance behaviors as caused by loss of self-esteem. In
doing so, we infer that it may subsume resistance factors that affect individuals’
self-esteem. However, we do not claim that it subsumes all sources of resistance to
IT. For example, temporary emotional states and inhibitors such as computer
anxiety may discourage IT use in general [90, 92]. When a system contributes to
284 CRAIG ET AL.

users’ problems rather than solve them, individuals may resist that system without
experiencing identity threat. The IT Identity Threat may contribute to research on
factors such as these, but is not intended to replace them.

Conclusion
As technology continues to infuse individuals’ lives, our research must explore the
ways it is changing lives in often harmful ways. Toward that end, this paper
develops, defines, and measures a new construct—the IT Identity Threat—which
captures the potential negative effect that IT can have on identity. Future research
based on the IT Identity Threat will be more valuable as ITs influence what it
means to be human. The IT Identity Threat can help explain why future generations
of ever-more intrusive and personal technologies may be rejected by some users.
However, because identity is malleable and can be re-formed, it also may point the
way toward helping individuals adapt in order to realize the greatest possible
benefit from emerging technologies.

Supplemental File
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website

NOTES
1. The verification of identity is an event described in the identity literature. It can be
defined as an individual’s observation, either direct or through perceptions communicated by
others, which confirms the self-beliefs that comprise an identity. In other words, when an
individual perceives that they are the kind of person that they believe they are, their identity
is verified [17] pp. 50-60.
2. This university was recently ranked in the top 20 Public Universities in the well-known
US News and World Rankings of Best Colleges.
3. It must be noted that while the list service sent invitations by email to all students and
faculty, it is not known how many of those invitations were treated as spam and ignored.
According to the list service administrator, our response rate was typical.
4. Our sample frames were selected with resistance in mind. We surveyed populations of
users that had vocally expressed discontent with the technology. For example, ePortfolio had
been subject to criticism in the student newspaper and critically evaluated in conference
papers. Also, post-implementation, iRoar had been the subject of committee meetings held
by the CIO to address faculty concerns about the system. Consequently, while we expected
variance in our sample frame, we also anticipated high levels of threat perceptions were
likely among subjects who selected to complete our survey.

REFERENCES
1. Ahuja, M.K.; and Thatcher, J.B. Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of
trying: effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use.
MIS Quarterly, 29, 3 (2005), 427–459.
2. Ali, M.; Zhou, L.; Miller, L.; and Ieromonachou, P. User resistance in IT: A literature
review. International Journal of Information Management, 36, 1 (2016), 35–43.
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 285

3. Ashforth, B.E. Distinguished scholar invited essay: Exploring identity and identifica-
tion in organizations: Time for some course corrections. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 23, 4 (2016), 361–373.
4. Ashforth, B.E.; and Kreiner, G.E. “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the
challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 3
(1999), 413–434.
5. Ashforth, B.E.; Schinoff, B.S.; and Rogers, K.M. “I identify with her,”“I identify with
him”: Unpacking the dynamics of personal identification in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 41, 1 (2016), 28–60.
6. Bacharach, S.B. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 4 (1989), 496–515.
7. Bala, H.; and Venkatesh, V. Adaptation to information technology: A holistic nomo-
logical network from implementation to job outcomes. Management Science, 62, 1 (2015),
156–179.
8. Beaudry, A.; and Pinsonneault, A. Understanding user responses to information tech-
nology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 3 (2005), 493–524.
9. Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 2 (1990), 238.
10. Bhattacherjee, A. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices.
Tampa, FL: Textbooks Collection, 2012.
11. Bhattacherjee, A.; and Hikmet, N. Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare informa-
tion technology: A theoretical model and empirical test. European Journal of Information
Systems, 16, 6 (2007), 725–737.
12. Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R.; Bollen, K.A.; and Long, J.S. Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, (1993), 136–136.
13. Burke, P.J. Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 6
(1991), 836–849.
14. Burke, P.J. Identities and social structure: The 2003 Cooley-Mead award address.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 1 (2004), 5–15.
15. Burke, P.J. Identity change. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 1 (2006), 81–96.
16. Burke, P.J. and Reitzes, D.C. An identity theory approach to commitment. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 54, 3 (1991), 239–251.
17. Burke, P.J.; and Stets, J.E. Identity Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
2009.
18. Byrne, B. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 2006.
19. Carr, N. Does IT Matter?: Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive
Advantage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
20. Carter, M.; and Grover, V. Me, my self, and I (T): Conceptualizing information
technology identity and its implications. Mis Quarterly, 39, 4 (2015), 931–958.
21. Cast, A.D.; and Burke, P.J. A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80, 3 (2002),
1041–1068.
22. Cavusoglu, H.; Hu, N.; Li, Y.; and Ma, D. Information technology diffusion with
influentials, imitators, and opponents. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 2
(2010), 305–334.
23. Cenfetelli, R.T. Inhibitors and enablers as dual factor concepts in technology usage.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5, 11 (2004), 16.
24. Chin, W.W.; Thatcher, J.B.; Wright, R.T.; and Steel, D. Controlling for common
method variance in PLS analysis: The measured latent marker variable approach. In H.
Abdi., W.W. Chin., V. Esposito Vinzi., G. Russolillo., and L. Trinchera (eds.), New
Perspectives in Partial Least Squares and Related Methods. New York: Springer, 2013,
pp. 231–239.
25. Churchill Jr, G.A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 1 (1979), 64–73.
26. Compeau, D.R.; and Higgins, C.A. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure
and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 2 (1995), 189–211.
286 CRAIG ET AL.

27. Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and

Company, 1967.
28. Coppola, N.W.; Hiltz, S.R.; and Rotter, N.G. Becoming a virtual professor:
Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18, 4 (2002), 169–189.
29. Crosman, P. Trade-off gets tougher between security and convenience. American
Banker, 2016. https://www.americanbanker.com/news/trade-off-gets-tougher-between-secur
ity-convenience
30. Davis, J.M. Leveraging the IT competence of non-IS workers: Social exchange and
the good corporate citizen. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 4 (2013),
403–415.
31. Doolin, B. Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management
information system. Information Systems Journal, 14, 4 (2004), 343–362.
32. Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C.; Pallud, J.; and Kalika, M. The influence of individual, contex-
tual, and social factors on perceived behavioral control of information technology: A field
theory approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 3 (2011), 201–234.
33. Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; and Doosje, B. Self and social identity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 1 (2002), 161–186.
34. Fleming, J.S.; and Courtney, B.E. The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchical
facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social psychology,
46, 2 (1984), 404.
35. Fornell, C.; and Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1 (1981), 39–50.
36. Graham, J. You will get chipped — eventually. 2017. https://www.usatoday.com/story/
tech/2017/08/09/you-get-chipped-eventually/547336001/.(Accessed on January 19, 2019).
37. Greenhalgh, T.; Swinglehurst, D.; and Stones, R. Rethinking resistance to “big IT”:
A sociological study of why and when healthcare staff do not use nationally mandated
information and communication technologies. Health Services and Delivery Research, 2, 39
(2014), 1–86.
38. Haslan, S. Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004.
39. Heatherton, T.F.; and Polivy, J. Development and validation of a scale for measuring
state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 6 (1991), 895.
40. Irani, Z.; and Love, P.E. The propagation of technology management taxonomies for
evaluating investments in information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems,
17, 3 (2000), 161–177.
41. Jasperson, J.S.; Carter, P.E.; and Zmud, R.W. A comprehensive conceptualization of
post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS
Quarterly, 29, 3 (2005), 525–557.
42. Keen, P.G. Information systems and organizational change. Communications of the
ACM, 24, 1 (1981), 24–33.
43. Kettinger, W.J.; and Lee, C.C. Replication of measures in information systems
research: The case of IS SERVQUAL. Decision Sciences, 30, 3 (1999), 893–899.
44. Kim, H.-W.; and Kankanhalli, A. Investigating user resistance to information systems
implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33, 3 (2009), 567–582.
45. Koppman, S.; Mattarelli, E.; and Gupta, A. Third-world “sloggers” or elite global
professionals? Using organizational toolkits to redefine work identity in information tech-
nology offshore outsourcing. Organization Science, 27, 4 (2016), 825–845.
46. Landis, J.R.; and Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33, 1 (1977), 159–174.
47. Lapointe, L.; and Rivard, S. A multilevel model of resistance to information technol-
ogy implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 3 (2005), 461–491.
48. Laumer, S.; Maier, C.; Eckhardt, A.; and Weitzel, T. Work routines as an object of
resistance during information systems implementations: Theoretical foundation and empiri-
cal evidence. European Journal of Information Systems, 25, 4 (2016), 317–343.
 THE IT IDENTITY THREAT 287

49. Lee, A.S.; and Baskerville, R.L. Generalizing generalizability in information systems
research. Information Systems Research, 14, 3 (2003), 221–243.
50. Lee, S.J. Quantitative versus qualitative research methods—Two approaches to orga-
nisation studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 9, 1 (1992), 87–94.
51. Lee, Y.; and Chen, A.N. Usability design and psychological ownership of a virtual
world. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 3 (2011), 269–308.
52. Leonardi, P.M. Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do
these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? Materiality and Organizing:
Social Interaction in a Technological World, 54, 5 (2012), 25–48.
53. Luhtanen, R.; and Crocker, J. A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s
social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 3 (1992), 302–318.
54. Lyytinen, K.; and Newman, M. Explaining information systems change: A punctuated
socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 6 (2008),
589–613.
55. MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M.; and Podsakoff, N.P. Construct measurement and
validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing
techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35, 2 (2011), 293–334.
56. Makkawi, A.; and Scott, C. Dirty Work. In C. Scott (ed.), The International
Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2017.
57. Marakas, G.M.; and Hornik, S. Passive resistance misuse: Overt support and covert
recalcitrance in IS implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 5, 3 (1996),
208–219.
58. Markus, M.L. Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM,
26, 6 (1983), 430–444.
59. Markus, M.L.; and Robey, D. Information technology and organizational change:
Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34, 5 (1988), 583–598.
60. McCall, M.; and Simmons, J. Identities and Interactions. New York: Free Press, 1978.
61. Menor, L.J.; and Roth, A.V. New service development competence in retail banking:
Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of Operations Management, 25,
4 (2007), 825–846.
62. Monat, A.; and Lazarus, R. Stress and Coping: an Anthology. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1977.
63. Nach, H. Identity under challenge: Examining user’s responses to computerized
information systems. Management Research Review, 38, 7 (2015), 703–725.
64. Nach, H.; and Lejeune, A. Coping with information technology challenges to identity:
A theoretical framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 4 (2010), 618–629.
65. Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Monte, New York, 1978.
66. Paré, G.; Bourdeau, S.; Marsan, J.; Nach, H.; and Shuraida, S. Re-examining the causal
structure of information technology impact research. European Journal of Information
Systems, 17, 4 (2008), 403–416.
67. Parsons, T.D.; and Rizzo, A.A. Affective outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy
for anxiety and specific phobias: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 39, 3 (2008), 250–261.
68. Petriglieri, J.L. Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to indivi-
duals’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36, 4 (2011), 641–662.
69. Petriglieri, J.L. Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to indivi-
duals’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36, 4 (2011), 641–662.
70. Petter, S.; Straub, D.; and Rai, A. Specifying formative constructs in information
systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31, 4 (2007), 623-656.
71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; and Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, (2012), 539–569.
72. Polit, D.F.; and Beck, C.T. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research:
myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 11 (2010),
1451–1458.
288 CRAIG ET AL.

73. Polites, G.L.; Roberts, N.; and Thatcher, J. Conceptualizing models using multidimen-
sional constructs: A review and guidelines for their use. European Journal of Information
Systems, 21, 1 (2012), 22–48.
74. Pratt, M.G.; Rockmann, K.W.; and Kaufmann, J.B. Constructing professional identity:
The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical
residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 2 (2006), 235–262.
75. Ramiller, N. New Technology and the post-human self: Rethinking appropriation and
resistance. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems,
47, 4 (2016), 23–33.
76. Raykov, T. Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 21, 2 (1997), 173–184.
77. Rosenberg, M. Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy. Measures Package, 61, (1965), 52.
78. Rubin, M.; and Hewstone, M. Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis:
A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 2, 1 (1998), 40–62.
79. Segars, A.H.; and Grover, V. Strategic information systems planning success: An
investigation of the construct and its measurement. MIS Quarterly, 22, 2 (1998), 139–163.
80. Shepherd, D.A; and Williams, T.A. Hitting rock bottom after job loss: Bouncing back
to create a new positive work identity. Academy of Management Review, 43, 1 (2018), 28–49.
81. Stets, J.E.; and Burke, P.J. Inconsistent self-views in the control identity model. Social
Science Research, 23, 3 (1994), 236–262.
82. Stets, J.E.; and Burke, P.J. Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 63, 3 (2000), 224-237.
83. Stets, J.E.; and Burke, P.J. A sociological approach to self and identity. In M.R. Leary
and J.P. Tangney (eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity. New York, Guilford Press, 2003, pp.
128–152.
84. Stets, J.E.; and Burke, P.J. Self-esteem and identities. Sociological Perspectives, 57, 4
(2014), 409–433.
85. Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.-C.; and Gefen, D. Validation guidelines for IS positivist
research. The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 1 (2004), 63.
86. Stryker, S.; and Burke, P.J. The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63, 4 (2000), 284-297.
87. Sun, H.; and Zhang, P. The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 2 (2006), 53–78.
88. Swann, W.; and Buhrmester, M. Self-verification: The search for coherence. In
M. Leary and J.P. Tankney (eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity. New York: The Guilford
Press, 2003, pp. 405–424.
89. Tarafdar, M.; Tu, Q.; Ragu-Nathan, B.S.; and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. The impact of
technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems,
24, 1 (2007), 301–328.
90. Thatcher, J.B.; and Perrewe, P.L. An empirical examination of individual traits as
antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quarterly, 26, 4 (2002),
381–396.
91. Tyler, T.R.; Kramer, R.M.; and John, O.P. The Psychology of the Social Self.
New York: Psychology Press, 2014.
92. Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems
Research, 11, 4 (2000), 342–365.
93. Wilson, M. Making nursing visible? Gender, technology and the care plan as script.
Information Technology & People, 15, 2 (2002), 139–158.
94. Witte, K.; and Allen, M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective
public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 5 (2000), 591–615.
95. Zikic, J.; and Richardson, J. What happens when you can’t be who you are:
Professional identity at the institutional periphery. Human Relations, 69, 1 (2016), 139–168.