Uncertainty is something that we all encounter in our daily lives from making simple choices to complicated decisions that have high risk. Decisions related to health and technology are complicated and not fully understood. The way information is presented to people ultimately influences their decision-making process. This study explores a concept called message framing which is how people react to the same information when it is presented in different ways. It originates from an economic theory called prospect theory which states that individuals tend to be risk averse when it comes to gains and risk seeking in terms of losses. The paper examines how varying degrees of uncertainty affect people’s intentions to use an electronic cigarette when exposed to positive and negative framed messages. It also explores the moderating effect of uncertainty in constructs taken from technology acceptance models. Findings show that message framing does affect intentions to use for threats with high uncertainty. It also shows that uncertainty has a moderating effect on individual’s intention to use electronic cigarettes.

Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Stair, R. M. (2000). Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy—an empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 418-430.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Akinola, A. A. (1986). Dynamic Innovator Imitator (IN IS) Diffusion Model. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 34(1), 113-124.
Arrow, K. (1970). Political and economic evaluation of social effects and externalities. In J. Margolis (Ed.), The Analysis of Public Output (pp. 1-30). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2), 178.
Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1993). Toward an assessment of software development risk. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2), 203-225.
Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192-203.
Boehm, B. W. (1991). Software risk management: Principles and practices. Software, IEEE, 8(1), 32-41.
Camerer, C. F. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1), 61-104.
Charette, R. N. (1989). Software engineering risk analysis and management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Claar, C., & Johnson, J. (2010). Analysing the adoption of computer security utilizing the health belief model. Issues in Information Systems, 4(1), 286-291.
Cohen, M., Jaffray, J.-Y., & Said, T. (1987). Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 1-22.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived uselfulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189.
Devetag, M. G. (1999). From utilities to mental models: A critical survey on decision rules and cognition in consumer choice. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8(2), 289-351.
Di Mauro, C., & Maffioletti, A. (1996). An experimental investigation of the impact of ambiguity on the valuationof self-insurance and self-protection. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13(1), 53-71.
Dobbs, I. M. (1991). A Bayesian approach to decision-making under ambiguity. Economica, 58(232), 417-440.
Du, N., & Budescu, D. V. (2005). The effects of imprecise probabilities and outcomes in evaluating investment options. Management Science, 51(12), 1791-1803.
Dupont, D. Y., & Lee, G. S. (2002). The endowment effect, status quo bias and loss aversion: Rational alternative explanation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(1), 87-101.
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 76-90.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1988). Decision making under ambiguity: A note Springer.
Farsalinos, K. E., Romagna, G., Tsiapras, D., Kyrzopoulos, S., & Voudris, V. (2014). Characteristics, perceived side effects and benefits of electronic cigarette use: A worldwide survey of more than 19,000 consumers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(4), 4356-4373.
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. International journal of human-computer studies, 59(4), 451-474.
Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 255-298.
Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research reading: Addison-Wesley.
Fishburn, P. C. (1988). Nonlinear preference and utility theory. California: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Gaol, F. L., Mars, W., & Saragih, H. (2014). Management and technology in knowledge, service, tourism & hospitality. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Haimes, Y. Y. (1991). Total risk management. Risk Analysis, 11(2), 169-171.
Hansen, T., Jensen, J. M., & Solgaard, H. S. (2004). Predicting online grocery buying intention: A comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Information Management, 24(6), 539-550.
Harnett, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1980). Bargaining behavior: An international study. NA: Dame Publications.
Harrison, J. A., Mullen, P. D., & Green, L. W. (1992). A meta-analysis of studies of the health belief model with adults. Health Education Research, 7(1), 107-116.
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 307.
Ho, J. L., Keller, L. R., & Keltyka, P. (2002). Effects of outcome and probabilistic ambiguity on managerial choices. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(1), 47-74.
Hogarth, R. M., & Kunreuther, H. (1989). Risk, ambiguity, and insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1), 5-35.
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., & Baroudi, J. J. (1996). A motivational model of microcomputer usage. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 127-143.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
Keren, G., & Gerritsen, L. E. (1999). On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychologica, 103(1), 149-172.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Sentry Press.
Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1964). Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. Oxford, England: Greenwood Press.
Kwon, H. S., & Chidambaram, L. (2000). A test of the technology acceptance model: The case of cellular telephone adoption. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 2000. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference Hawaii.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 752-780.
Lindner, R. K., Pardey, P. G., & Jarrett, F. G. (1982). Distance to information source and the time lag to early adoption of trace element fertilisers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 26(2), 98-113.
Liu, E. M. (2013). Time to change what to sow: Risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1386-1403.
Luarn, P., & Lin, H.-H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 873-891.
Luce, R. D., & Fishburn, P. C. (1991). Rank-and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 29-59.
Machina, M. J. (1992). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. In Dionne (Ed.), Foundations of Insurance Economics (pp. 49-82). New York: Springer.
Mangelsdorff, L., & Weber, M. (1994). Testing Choquet expected utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 25(3), 437-457.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
McMillen, R. C., Gottlieb, M. A., Shaefer, R. M. W., Winickoff, J. P., & Klein, J. D. (2015). Trends in electronic cigarette use among US adults: use is increasing in both smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 17(10), 1195-1202.
Mellers, B. A., & Chang, S.-j. (1994). Representations of risk judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(2), 167-184.
O'Connor, D. B., Ferguson, E., & O'Connor, R. C. (2005). Intentions to use hormonal male contraception: The role of message framing, attitudes and stress appraisals. British Journal of Psychology, 96(3), 351-369.
Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 323-343.
Robberson, M. R., & Rogers, R. W. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self‐esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 277-287.
Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain-and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1355-1369.
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.
Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(5), 408-433.
Samadi, M., & Yaghoob-Nejadi, A. (2009). A survey of the effect of consumers’ perceived risk on purchase intention in e-shopping. Business Intelligence Journal, 2(2), 261-275.
Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 57(3), 571-587.
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9-38.
Sjöberg, L. (1980). The risks of risk analysis. Acta Psychologica, 45(1), 301-321.
Sun, Y., & Jeyaraj, A. (2013). Information technology adoption and continuance: A longitudinal study of individuals’ behavioral intentions. Information & Management, 50(7), 457-465.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176.
Thong, J. Y., Hong, W., & Tam, K.-Y. (2002). Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: What are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(3), 215-242.
Timmermans, H. (2010). On the (ir) relevance of prospect theory in modelling uncertainty in travel decisions. EJTIR, 4(10), 368-384.
Toll, B. A., O'Malley, S. S., Katulak, N. A., Wu, R., Dubin, J. A., Latimer, A., . . . Cooney, J. L. (2007). Comparing gain-and loss-framed messages for smoking cessation with sustained-release bupropion: A randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(4), 534-544.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1989). Rational choice and the framing of decisions Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Risk Analysis Using Microcomputers (pp. 81-126). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test*. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Viscusi, W. K., & Chesson, H. (1999). Hopes and fears: The conflicting effects of risk ambiguity. Theory and Decision, 47(2), 157-184.
Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weinstein, N. D., & Nicolich, M. (1993). Correct and incorrect interpretations of correlations between risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Health Psychology, 12(3), 235-245.
Weymark, J. A. (1981). Generalized Gini inequality indices. Mathematical Social Sciences, 1(4), 409-430.
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information systems research, 16(1), 85-102.
Wu, G., Greene, D., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2010). Distortion as a validation criterion in the identification of suspicious reviews. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics, Washington DC.
Yaari, M. E. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(1), 95-115.
Yates, J. F., & Stone, E. R. (1992). Risk-taking behavior Vol. 92. (pp. 49-85).
Yoo, S. J., Han, S. H., & Huang, W. H. (2012). The roles of intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators in promoting e-learning in the workplace: A case from South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 942-950.