ISECON 2006

Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model

Jason SharpComputer Information SystemsTarleton State UniversityStephenville, Texas, USAjsharp@tarleton.edu

ISECON 2006

Introduction

Question: Why do people accept or reject technology? Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Geared specifically toward information technology Strong reliability and validity of instruments Extensive research: 147 articles between 1990 and 2003 Good example of how a model is extended and applied

Purpose: To examine the development, extension, and application of TAM

in order to identify potential areas of research for future study To provide IS educators with a foundation for guiding students in

regard to the TAM literature To provide a starting point for evaluating educational technologies To serve as a general reference for those interested in technology

acceptance

ISECON 2006

Methodology

Keyword search of ABI Inform, Academic Search Premier, and IEEE Express

Criteria: Extension of Legris, Ingham, and Collerette (2003)

Prior analysis of articles from 1980 to 2001 Current analysis of articles from 2001 to 2005

Compared articles utilizing a quantitative research method PLS, LISREL, path or regression analysis

Broader range of journals than Legris et al. (2003) Prior analysis included only six IT related journals

Articles grouped on logical categories chosen by the author (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)

ISECON 2006

A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model

Development

ISECON 2006

Development: TAM (Original)

PerceivedUsefulness

PerceivedEase of Use

Attitude Intention toUse

UsageBehavior

Davis (1989)

Perceived ease of use – “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” (Davis, 1989, p. 320)

Perceived usefulness – “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (p. 320)

ISECON 2006

Development: TAM (Original)

Study 1 Technology: PROFS electronic mail and XEDIT editor Sample Size: 120 users employed by IBM

Study 2 Technology: Chart-Master and Pendraw Sample Size: 40 MBA students

Overall Findings: Perceived Usefulness significant determinant of Usage Perceived Ease of Use significant determinant of Usage Effect of Perceived Usefulness significantly greater than Perceived

Ease of Use Attitude does not fully mediate effect of Perceived Usefulness and

Perceived Ease of Use on Behavior Perceived Ease of Use as an antecedent of Perceived Usefulness

ISECON 2006

Development: TAM (Parsimonious)

Study (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, 1989) Technology: WriteOne, word processor Sample Size: 107 MBA students

Overall Findings Perceived Usefulness strong significant determinant of Usage Perceived Ease of Use significant determinant of Usage, but

significantly weaker than Perceived Usefulness Attitude only partially mediated effects of Perceived Usefulness

and Perceived Ease of Use on Usage

ISECON 2006

Development: TAM (Parsimonious)

PerceivedUsefulness

PerceivedEase of Use

Intention toUse

UsageBehavior

Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989)

ISECON 2006

Development: TAM2

PerceivedUsefulness

PerceivedEase of Use

Intention toUse

UsageBehavior

ResultDemonstrability

OutputQuality

JobRelevance

Image

SubjectiveNorm

Experience Voluntariness

Venkatesh and Davis (2000)

ISECON 2006

Development: TAM2

Subjective Norm – influence of others on user’s decision to use or not use

Image – maintaining a favorable standing Job Relevance – degree to which the target system is

applicable Output Quality – how well the system performs tasks Result Demonstrability – tangible results Experience – with the system Voluntariness – perception of voluntary/mandatory use

ISECON 2006

Development: TAM2

Study 1 (voluntary): Technology: Proprietary system Sample Size: 38 floor supervisors

Study 2 (voluntary): Technology: Migration to Windows-based environment Sample Size: 39 personal financial services employees

Study 3 (mandatory): Technology: Windows-based account management system Sample Size: 43 accounting firm services employees

Study 4 (mandatory): Technology: Stock portfolio analysis system Sample Size: 36 investment banking employees

ISECON 2006

Development: TAM2

PerceivedUsefulness

PerceivedEase of Use

Intention toUse

UsageBehavior

ResultDemonstrability

OutputQuality

JobRelevance

Image

SubjectiveNorm

Experience Voluntariness

Venkatesh and Davis (2000)

ISECON 2006

Development: Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use

PerceivedUsefulness

PerceivedEase of Use

Intention toUse

UsageBehavior

ComputerSelf-Efficacy

ObjectiveUsability

DirectExperience

Venkatesh and Davis (1996)

Computer Self-efficacy – how does the user feel about their ability to use technology

Objective Usability – objective system measures, e.g., keystroke model, expert to novice performance comparison

ISECON 2006

Development: Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use Study 1:

Technology: Chartmaster and Pendraw Sample Size: 40 MBA students

Study 2: Technology: WordPerfect and Lotus Sample Size: 36 undergraduate students

Study 3: Pine (electronic mail) and Gopher (information access) Sample Size: 32 part-time MBA students

Overall Findings Before hands-on experience, Computer Self-efficacy was a significant

determinant of Perceive Ease of Use, Objective Usability was not After direct experience, both Computer self-efficacy and Objective

Usability were significant determinants of Perceived Ease of Use

ISECON 2006

Development: Antecedents Revised

PerceivedUsefulness

PerceivedEase of Use

Intention toUse

UsageBehavior

ObjectiveUsability

PerceivedEnjoyment

ComputerPlayfulness

ComputerAnxiety

Perception ofExternal Control

ComputerSelf-Efficacy

Venkatesh (2000)

Perception of External Control - availability of support staffComputer Anxiety – apprehension or fearComputer Playfulness – desire to explore and playPerceived Enjoyment – enjoyable apart from performance consequences

ISECON 2006

Development: Antecedents of Perceived Ease of UseThree studies measured three times over three months Study 1:

Technology: Interactive online help desk system Sample Size: 58 retail electronic store employees

Study 2: Technology: Multimedia system for property management Sample Size: 145 real estate agency employees

Study 3: Technology: Migration to PC-based environment Sample Size: 43 financial services employees

Pooled Results T1: Perceived Enjoyment and Objective Usability not significant T2: All antecedents significant T3: Computer Playfulness not significant

ISECON 2006

A review of the Technology Acceptance Model

Extension

ISECON 2006

Extension: Determinants of Intention to Use Author Determinant Finding

Hu et al. (2005) Availability Not significant

Huang (2005); Moon & Kim (2001)

Perceived Playfulness Not significant

Significant

Gong et al. (2004) Computer Self-efficacy Significant

Mathieson et al. (2004)

Perceived Resources Significant

Chau & Hu (2002) Perceived Behavioral Control

Significant

Yi & Hwang (2003) Application Specific Self-efficacy

Significant

Van der Heijden (2004)

Perceived Enjoyment Significant

ISECON 2006

Extension: Determinants of Attitude

Author Determinant Finding

Huang (2005);

Moon & Kim (2001)

Perceived Playfulness Significant

Shih (2004) Relevance Significant

ISECON 2006

Extension: External Variables of Usefulness

Author External Variable Finding

Hu et al. (2005) Efficiency Gain Significant

Chan & Lu (2004) Perceived Risk Significant

Amoako-Gyampah et al. (2004)

Shared Beliefs Significant

Chau (2001) Computer Attitude Significant

Hong et al. (2001-2002); Shih (2004)

Relevance Significant

Liaw & Huang (2003); Yi & Hwang (2003)

Perceived Enjoyment Significant

ISECON 2006

Extension: External Variables of Ease of Use

Author External Variable Finding

Amoako-Gyampah et al. (2004)

Shared Beliefs, Training Significant

Chau (2001) Computer Attitude Not significant

Mathieson et al. (2001) Perceived Resources Not significant

Hong et al. (2001-2002)

Knowledge of Search Domain

Significant

Hong et al. (2001-2002); Shih (2004)

Relevance Significant

Liaw & Huang (2003) Individual Computer Experience

Significant

ISECON 2006

A review of the Technology Acceptance Model

Application

ISECON 2006

Application: Original TAM (Supporting)

Author Technology Sample Size

Hu et al. (2005) COPLINK 283 police officers

Huang (2005) Women-centric Web site

390 subjects

Amoako-Gyampah & Salam (2004)

ERP system 409 end-users

Mathieson et al. (2001)

Bulletin board system

401 members of IMA

Chau & Hu (2002) Telemedicine 408 physicians

Perceived Usefulness a stronger determinant than Perceived Ease of Use

ISECON 2006

Application: Original TAM (Opposing)

Author Technology Sample Size

Gong et al. (2004) Web-based learning system

152 teachers

Moon & Kim (2001) World Wide Web 152 graduate students

Shih (2004) Internet utilization behavior

203 office workers

Brown et al. (2002) Computer banking system

107 bank employees

Perceived Ease of Use a stronger determinant than Perceived Usefulness

ISECON 2006

Application: Influence of Attitude on Intention

Author Finding

Hu et al. (2005) Not significant

Huang (2005) Significant

Amoako-Gyampah & Salam (2004) Significant

Mathieson et al. (2001) Significant

Chau & Hu (2002) Significant

Gong et al. (2004) Significant

Moon & Kim (2001) Significant

Shih (2004) Significant

Brown et al. (2002) Not significant

ISECON 2006

Application: Parsimonious TAM (Supporting)

Author Technology Sample

Hong et al. (2001-2002)

Digital library 585 students

Chau (2001) General IT usage 360 undergraduate business students

Liaw & Huang (2003) Search engines 114 medical students

Lin & Wu (2004) End-user computing 195 workers

Yi & Hwang (2004) Web-based information system

109 introductory IS students

Perceived Usefulness a stronger determinant than Perceived Ease of Use

ISECON 2006

Application: Parsimonious TAM (Opposing)

Author Technology Sample

Van der Heijden (2004)

Hedonic information system

1114 users of a Dutch movie Web site

Perceived Ease of Use a stronger determinant than Perceived Usefulness

ISECON 2006

Application: TAM2 (Mixed results)

Author Technology Sample

Chan & Lu (2004) Internet banking 499 undergraduate and graduate students

• Subjective Norm and Image significant determinant of Perceived Usefulness

• Results Demonstrability not a significant determinant of Perceived Usefulness

• Perceived Ease of Use significant determinant of Perceived Usefulness, but not of Intention to Use

• Perceived Usefulness significant determinant of Intention to Use

ISECON 2006

Application: Environment

Volitional Mandatory

Hu et al. (2005) Davis & Venkatesh (2000)

Huang (2005) Brown et al. (2002)

Amoako-Gyampah & Salam (2004)

Mathieson et al. (2001)

Chau & Hu (2002)

Gong et al. (2004)

Moon & Kim (2001)

Shih (2004)

Hong et al. (2001-2002)

Chau (2001)

Liaw & Huang (2003)

Lin & Wu (2004)

Yi & Hwang (2004)

Van der Heijden (2004)

Chan & Lu (2004)

ISECON 2006

Research Potential Mixed results of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of

Use as the stronger determinant Ten studies supported Perceived Usefulness Six studies supported Perceived Ease of Use How does the type of technology of affect the results?

Volitional versus mandatory use environments Fifteen studies conducted in volitional environments Two studies conducted in mandatory environments How does the environment affect the results?

The role of Attitude Seven studies indicated Attitude as a direct determinant Two studies indicated Attitude is not a direct determinant Does attitude play a greater role than previously thought?

ISECON 2006

Importance to Information Systems Educators

Provides a foundation for assisting faculty to guide students about the history of TAM

Provides a quick summary of statistical significance of various determinants and external variables

Provides a starting point for evaluating educational technologies

Provides a ready reference of current technologies evaluated with TAM

ISECON 2006

Conclusion

Examined the development, extension, and application of TAM

Identified three specific areas for future research

Constructed a ready reference for IS educators

Developed a general overview of TAM for those interested in technology acceptance

ISECON 2006

Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model

Jason SharpComputer Information SystemsTarleton State UniversityStephenville, Texas, USAjsharp@tarleton.edu

ISECON 2006

ReferencesAmoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP

implementation environment. Information & Management, 41(6), 731-745.

Chan, S., & Lu, M. (2004). Understanding internet banking adoption and use behavior: A Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 12(3), 21-43.

Chau, P. Y. K. (2001). Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage behavior. Journal of End User Computing, 13(1), 26-33.

Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. (2002). Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: An empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management, 39(4), 297-311.

Brown, S. A., Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Burkman, J. R. (2002). Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(4), 283-295.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, 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.

Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems successes: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.

Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems Success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gong, M., Xu, Y., Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based Learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365-374.

Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Wong, W., & Tam, K. (2001-2002). Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 97-124.

ISECON 2006

ReferencesHorton, R. P., Buck, T., Waterson, P. E., & Clegg, C. W. (2001). Explaining intranet use with the technology

acceptance model. Journal of Information Technology, 16(4), 237-249.Hu, P. J., Lin, C., & Chen, H. (2005). User acceptance of intelligence and security informatics technology: A study of

COPLINK. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(3), 235-244.Huang, E. (2005). The acceptance of women-centric websites. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(4),

75-83.Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2003). An investigation of user attitudes toward search engines as an information retrieval

tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 751-765.Lin, F., & Wu, J. (2004). An empirical study of end-user computing acceptance factors in small and medium enterprises

in Taiwan: Analyzed by structural equation modeling. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(3), 98-108.Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chinn, W. C. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of

perceived user resources. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86-112.Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38(4)

217-230.Shih, H. (2004). Extended technology acceptance model of internet utilization behavior. Information & Management,

41(6), 719-729.Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704.Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into

the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of 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.Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance.

Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2004). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning

goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431-449.