Search results

To cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, contact tracing mobile apps (CTMAs) have been developed to trace contact among infected individuals and alert people at risk of infection. To disrupt virus transmission until the majority of the population has been vaccinated, achieving the herd immunity threshold, CTMA continuance usage is essential in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. This study seeks to examine what motivates individuals to continue using CTMAs.

Following the coping theory, this study proposes a research model to examine CTMA continuance usage, conceptualizing opportunity appraisals (perceived usefulness and perceived distress relief), threat appraisals (privacy concerns) and secondary appraisals (perceived response efficacy) as the predictors of individuals' CTMA continuance usage during the pandemic. In the United States, an online survey was administered to 551 respondents.

The results revealed that perceived usefulness and response efficacy motivate CTMA continuance usage, while privacy concerns do not.

This study enriches the understanding of CTMA continuance usage during a public health crisis, and it offers practical recommendations for authorities.

The impact of stress on personal and work-related outcomes has been studied in the information systems (IS) literature across several professions. However, the cybersecurity profession has received little attention despite numerous reports suggesting stress is a leading cause of various adverse professional outcomes. Cybersecurity professionals work in a constantly changing adversarial threat landscape, are focused on enforcement rather than compliance, and are required to adhere to ever-changing industry mandates – a work environment that is stressful and has been likened to a war zone. Hence, this literature review aims to reveal gaps and trends in the current extant general workplace and IS-specific stress literature and illuminate potentially fruitful paths for future research focused on stress among cybersecurity professionals.

Using the systematic literature review process (Okoli and Schabram, 2010), the authors examined the current IS research that studies stress in organizations. A disciplinary corpus was generated from IS journals and conferences encompassing 30 years. The authors analyzed 293 articles from 21 journals and six conferences to retain 77 articles and four conference proceedings for literature review.

The findings reveal four key research opportunities. First, the demands experienced by cybersecurity professionals are distinct from the demands experienced by regular information technology (IT) professionals. Second, it is crucial to identify the appraisal process that cybersecurity professionals follow in assessing security demands. Third, there are many stress responses from cybersecurity professionals, not just negative responses. Fourth, future research should focus on stress-related outcomes such as employee productivity, job satisfaction, job turnover, etc., and not only security compliance among cybersecurity professionals.

This study is the first to provide a systematic synthesis of the IS stress literature to reveal gaps, trends and opportunities for future research focused on stress among cybersecurity professionals. The study presents several novel trends and research opportunities. It contends that the demands experienced by cybersecurity professionals are distinct from those experienced by regular IT professionals and scholars should seek to identify the key characteristics of these demands that influence their appraisal process. Also, there are many stress responses, not just negative responses, deserving increased attention and future research should focus on unexplored stress-related outcomes for cybersecurity professionals.

Current publication practices in the scholarly (International) Business and Management community are overwhelmingly anti-Popperian, which fundamentally frustrates the production of scientific progress. This is the result of at least five related biases: the verification, novelty, normal science, evidence, and market biases. As a result, no one is really interested in replicating anything. In this essay, the author extensively argues what he believes is wrong, why that is so, and what we might do about this. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This is an essay, combining a literature review with polemic argumentation.

Only a tiny fraction of published studies involve a replication effort. Moreover, journal authors, editors, reviewers and readers are not interested in seeing nulls and negatives in print. This replication crisis implies that Popper’s critical falsification principle is actually thrown into the scientific community’s dustbin. Behind the façade of all these so-called new discoveries, false positives abound, as do questionable research practices meant to produce all this allegedly cutting-edge and groundbreaking significant findings. If this dismal state of affairs does not change for the good, (International) Business and Management research is ending up in a deadlock.

A radical cultural change in the scientific community, including (International) Business and Management, is badly needed. It should be in the community’s DNA to engage in the quest for the “truth” – nothing more, nothing less. Such a change must involve all stakeholders: scholars, editors, reviewers, and students, but also funding agencies, research institutes, university presidents, faculty deans, department chairs, journalists, policymakers, and publishers. In the words of Ioannidis (2012, p. 647): “Safeguarding scientific principles is not something to be done once and for all. It is a challenge that needs to be met successfully on a daily basis both by single scientists and the whole scientific establishment.”

Publication practices have to change radically. For instance, editorial policies should dispose of their current overly dominant pro-novelty and pro-positives biases, and explicitly encourage the publication of replication studies, including failed and unsuccessful ones that report null and negative findings.

This is an explicit plea to change the way the scientific research community operates, offering a series of concrete recommendations what to do before it is too late.

This study aims to reveal how mobile app stickiness is formed and how the stickiness formation process differs for apps of different social levels.

This study proposed and validated a stickiness formation model following the cognitive–affective–conative framework. Data were collected from surveys of 1,240 mobile app users and analyzed using structural equation modeling. Multigroup analysis was applied to contrast the stickiness formation process among apps of different social levels.

This study revealed a causal link between cognitive, affective and conative factors. It found partial mediation effects of trust in the association between perceptions and satisfaction, and the full mediation role of satisfaction and personal investment (PI) in the effects of subjective norm (SN) on stickiness. The multigroup analysis results suggested that social media affordances benefit stickiness through increased PI and strengthened effects of SN on PI. However, it damages stickiness through increased perceived privacy risk (PPR), decreased trust and strengthened effects of PPR on trust.

This study contributes to both stickiness scholars and practitioners, as it builds a model to understand the stickiness formation process and reveals the effects of the “go social” strategy. The novelty of this study is that it examined social influences, considered privacy issues and revealed two mediation mechanisms. The findings can guide the improvement of mobile app stickiness and the application of the “go social” strategy.