Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence From Panel Data1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory suggests that coworkers may influence individuals’ technology use behaviors, but there is limited research in the technology diffusion literature that explicates how such social influence processes operate after initial adoption. We investigate how two key social influence mechanisms (identification and internalization) may explain the growth over time in individuals’ use of knowledge management systems (KMS)—a technology that because of its publicly visible use provides a rich context for investigating social influence. We test our hypotheses using longitudinal KMS usage data on over 80,000 employees of a management consulting firm. Our approach infers the presence of identification and internalization from associations between actual system use behaviors by a focal individual and prior system use by a range of reference groups. Evidence of these kinds of associations between system use behaviors helps construct a more complete picture of social influence mechanisms, and is to our knowledge novel to the technology diffusion literature. Our results confirm the utility of this approach for understanding social influence effects and reveal a fine-grained pattern of influence across different social groups: we found strong support for bottom-up social influence across hierarchical levels, limited support for peer-level influence within levels, and no support for top-down influence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".