PSYCHO-ANTHROPOLOGICAL FRICTION (SCF - Symbolic-Cognitive Friction) IN SME INNOVATION: MEASURING CULTURAL COSTS AND COGNITIVE RESISTANCE TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND SOCIOECONOMIC VALUE CREATION
Abstract
This study proposes Psycho-Anthropological Friction (SCF) as a measurable coefficient of cultural cost and cognitive resistance that limits small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in converting Artificial Intelligence (AI) initiatives into scalable socioeconomic value. While established adoption models (TAM, UTAUT and Diffusion of Innovations) explain intention and use, they often under-specify symbolic dynamics (rituals, identity and power), threat-based cognition (loss aversion, overload and heuristics) and their economic implications. SCF is operationalized through three core vectors Perceived Complexity (PC), Institutional Risk Aversion (AR) and Cultural Inertia (CI) and extended to a second-order layer (SCF-E) capturing techno-cultural imagination deficit and symbolic governance, clarifying why AI remains trapped in pilots. Methodologically, we outline a mixed-methods QUAN→QUAL design: (i) development and validation of a psychometric scale (SCF-30) and a 0–100 index, tested with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and reliability/validity procedures; (ii) SCF-oriented organizational ethnography with a structured protocol and evidence triangulation. The paper delivers replicable artifacts (scale, minimum AI governance checklist, 30-60-90 day intervention matrix) and discusses managerial and policy implications to reduce friction, enable responsible adoption and guide productivity and inclusion strategies.
Author Biography
References
AJZEN, Icek. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, v. 50, n. 2, p. 179-211, 1991.
BARNEY, Jay. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, v. 17, n. 1, p. 99-120, 1991.
BRUNO-FARIA, Maria de Fátima; FONSECA, Marcus Vinicius de Araujo. Cultura de inovação: conceitos e modelos teóricos. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 18, n. 4, p. 372-396, 2014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac20141025
BRYNJOLFSSON, Erik; MCAFEE, Andrew. The second machine age. New York: W. W. Norton, 2014.
COASE, Ronald H. The nature of the firm. Economica, v. 4, n. 16, p. 386-405, 1937.
COHEN, Wesley M.; LEVINTHAL, Daniel A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35, n. 1, p. 128-152, 1990.
DAVIS, Fred D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, v. 13, n. 3, p. 319-340, 1989.
DIGITAL INSIDE. Como a IA influencia a transição digital e sustentável das PME europeias. Digital Inside, 31 jul. 2025. Disponível em: https://digitalinside.sapo.pt/como-a-ia-influencia-a-transicao-digital-sustentavel-das-pme-europeias/ Acesso em: 13 fev. 2026.
EDMONDSON, Amy. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 44, n. 2, p. 350-383, 1999.
EUROSTAT. Digitalisation in Europe – 2023 edition. [S. l.]: Eurostat, 2023. Disponível em: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/digitalisation-2023 Acesso em: 20 fev. 2026.
EUROSTAT. Digitalisation in Europe – 2025 edition. Eurostat, 2025. Disponível em: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/digitalisation-2025 Acesso em: 20 fev. 2026.
FUNDAÇÃO VANZOLINI. Inteligência Artificial revolucionando empresas modernas. São Paulo: Fundação Vanzolini, 16 jul. 2024. Disponível em: https://vanzolini.org.br/blog/inteligencia-artificial-empresas-modernas/ Acesso em: 13 fev. 2026.
GEERTZ, Clifford. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
KAHNEMAN, Daniel. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
KAHNEMAN, Daniel; TVERSKY, Amos. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, v. 47, n. 2, p. 263-291, 1979.
KOCK, Ned; HADAYA, Pierre. Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: the inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, v. 28, n. 1, p. 227-261, 2018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
MARCH, James G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, v. 2, n. 1, p. 71-87, 1991.
MICROSOFT. 75% das MPMEs no Brasil estão otimistas sobre o impacto da inteligência artificial em seus negócios, aponta estudo da Microsoft. News Microsoft, 7 maio 2025. Disponível em: https://news.microsoft.com/source/latam/features/noticias-da-microsoft/75-das-mpmes-no-brasil-estao-otimistas-sobre-o-impacto-da-inteligencia-artificial-em-seus-negocios-aponta-estudo-da-microsoft/ Acesso em: 20 fev. 2026.
NARDO, Michela; SAISANA, Michaela; SALTELLI, Andrea; TARANTOLA, Stefano; HOFFMAN, Anders; GIOVANNINI, Enrico. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2005. Disponível em: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2005/08/handbook-on-constructing-composite-indicators_g17a16e3/533411815016.pdf Acesso em: 20 fev. 2026.
NIST. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2023.
NONAKA, Ikujiro; TAKEUCHI, Hirotaka. The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
OECD. AI adoption by small and medium-sized enterprises. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025. Disponível em: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/12/ai-adoption-by-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises_9c48eae6/426399c1-en.pdf Acesso em: 20 fev. 2026.
OECD. OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019.
OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. Paris: OECD, 2019.
OECD. The Digital Transformation of SMEs. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/02/the-digital-transformation-of-smes_ec3163f5/bdb9256a-en.pdf Acesso em: 20 fev. 2026.
OREG, Shaul. Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, v. 88, n. 4, p. 680-693, 2003.
ORLIKOWSKI, Wanda J. The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, v. 3, n. 3, p. 398-427, 1992.
OSTERWALDER, Alexander; PIGNEUR, Yves. Business model generation. Hoboken: Wiley, 2010.
QLIK. 61% of Global Businesses are Scaling Back AI Investment as a Result of Trust Issues. Philadelphia, PA: Qlik, 10 dez. 2024. Disponível em: https://www.qlik.com/us/news/company/press-room/press-releases/61-percent-of-global-businesses-are-scaling-back-ai-investment-as-a-result-of-trust-issues Acesso em: 20 fev. 2026.
RAI, Arun; PATNAYAKUNI, Ravi; SETH, Naveen. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly, v. 30, n. 2, p. 225-246, 2006.
ROGERS, Everett M. Diffusion of innovations. 5. ed. New York: Free Press, 2003.
SCHEIN, Edgar H. Organizational culture and leadership. 4. ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
SERPA, S. S. J. A fricção psicoantropológica na era da IA: notas de campo em PMEs brasileiras. Caderno de Cultura e Inovação, 2026.
SERPA, S. S. J. Liderança Regenerativa e ambidestria psiconômica: um manifesto para além da gestão. São Paulo: Edições Raiz, 2025.
SLOVIC, Paul. Perception of risk. Science, v. 236, n. 4799, p. 280-285, 1987.
TRIST, Eric. The evolution of socio-technical systems. Occasional Paper, Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre, 1981.
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. Regulamento (UE) 2024/1689 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 13 de junho de 2024, que estabelece regras harmonizadas em matéria de inteligência artificial (Artificial Intelligence Act). Jornal Oficial da União Europeia, L, 12 jul. 2024. Disponível em: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng Acesso em: 13 fev. 2026.
VENKATESH, Viswanath; MORRIS, Michael G.; DAVIS, Gordon B.; DAVIS, Fred D. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, v. 27, n. 3, p. 425-478, 2003.
WEICK, Karl E. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1995.
WESTLAND, J. Christopher. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, v. 9, n. 6, p. 476-487, 2010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
WILLIAMSON, Oliver E. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press, 1985.
WOLF, E. J.; HARRINGTON, K. M.; CLARK, S. L.; MILLER, M. W. Sample size requirements for structural equation models: an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, v. 73, n. 6, p. 913-934, 2013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
YOTZOV, I.; BARRERO, J. M.; BLOOM, N.; DAVIS, S. J. Firm Data on AI. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2026. (NBER Working Paper 34836). Disponível em: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34836/w34836.pdf Acesso em: 20 fev. 2026.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 RECIMA21 - Revista Científica Multidisciplinar - ISSN 2675-6218
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Os direitos autorais dos artigos/resenhas/TCCs publicados pertecem à revista RECIMA21, e seguem o padrão Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0), permitindo a cópia ou reprodução, desde que cite a fonte e respeite os direitos dos autores e contenham menção aos mesmos nos créditos. Toda e qualquer obra publicada na revista, seu conteúdo é de responsabilidade dos autores, cabendo a RECIMA21 apenas ser o veículo de divulgação, seguindo os padrões nacionais e internacionais de publicação.