Search results

Disasters and other emergencies are increasing, with millions of people affected by events like earthquakes, fires and flooding. The use of mobile emergency alert systems (MEAS) can improve people’s responses by providing targeted alerts based on location and other personal details. This study aims to understand the factors that influence people’s willingness to share the personal information that is needed to provide context-specific messaging about a threat and protective actions.

Drawing on protection motivation theory (PMT), this study proposes and tests a model of willingness to use personalised MEAS that incorporates key factors related to an individual’s appraisal of a potential threat (i.e. perceived vulnerability and severity) and coping capacity (i.e. response efficacy and self-efficacy), with deterrents like response cost and privacy concern. This study uses survey data from 226 respondents in New Zealand and SmartPLS to assess the model.

The results show how willingness to use MEAS is influenced by people’s appraisal of an emergency threat and their perception of how using MEAS would help them to cope effectively. Fear and perceived severity are significant motivators of MEAS use, along with coping appraisal. However, when the negative influences of privacy concern and response cost are strong enough, they can dissuade use, despite knowing the risks.

The study addresses a gap in research on the use of alert systems like MEAS, which require sharing of personal information and continuous engagement such as the real-time disclosure of one’s location. It confirms the significance of factors not studied in prior research, such as privacy concerns, that can dissuade use. This study also extends the application of the PMT in the context of emergency management.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of motivation for knowledge sharing (KS) by assessing how four qualitatively different motivation types, as per self-determination theory (SDT), predict KS, its quality and its undesirable counterpart, knowledge withholding.

The study was carried out as a survey (n = 200) in an expert organization. The analyses were conducted using structural equation modeling.

Autonomous type of extrinsic motivation (identified motivation) was the strongest predictor of KS (in work meetings) and its quality, whereas the other motivation types (intrinsic, introjected and external) had no independent contribution to variance in KS. Knowledge withholding was negatively associated with identified and positively with external KS motivation.

Single organization limits the generalizability of the results. Future studies should further investigate the role of identified motivation for various KS behaviors.

The findings suggest that autonomy-supportive management practices known to facilitate self-determined behavior can improve KS. Fostering external motivation by incentivizing KS may be both ineffective and have undesirable consequences.

Few prior studies investigate KS motivation beyond external and intrinsic motivation or apply SDT to KS using SDT-based scales. This study distinguishes between four different motivation types and is the first to investigate their differential impact on KS and its quality. It is also the first to demonstrate the importance of identified motivation for KS. It further elucidates how the quality of KS motivation is reflected in knowledge withholding, an overall underinvestigated behavior.