IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v46y2000i2p186-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Viswanath Venkatesh

    (Robert H. Smith School of Business, Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742)

  • Fred D. Davis

    (Sam M. Walton College of Business Administration, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701)

Abstract

The present research develops and tests a theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that explains perceived usefulness and usage intentions in terms of social influence and cognitive instrumental processes. The extended model, referred to as TAM2, was tested using longitudinal data collected regarding four different systems at four organizations (N = 156), two involving voluntary usage and two involving mandatory usage. Model constructs were measured at three points in time at each organization: preimplementation, one month postimplementation, and three months postimplementation. The extended model was strongly supported for all four organizations at all three points of measurement, accounting for 40%--60% of the variance in usefulness perceptions and 34%--52% of the variance in usage intentions. Both social influence processes (subjective norm, voluntariness, and image) and cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output quality, result demonstrability, and perceived ease of use) significantly influenced user acceptance. These findings advance theory and contribute to the foundation for future research aimed at improving our understanding of user adoption behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:46:y:2000:i:2:p:186-204
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Detmar Straub & Moez Limayem & Elena Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995. "Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(8), pages 1328-1342, August.
    2. Roberson, Loriann, 1989. "Assessing personal work goals in the organizational setting: Development and evaluation of the work concerns inventory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 345-367, December.
    3. Jon Hartwick & Henri Barki, 1994. "Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 440-465, April.
    4. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Speier, Cheri, 1999. "Computer Technology Training in the Workplace: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Effect of Mood, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 1-28, July.
    5. Kieran Mathieson, 1991. "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 173-191, September.
    6. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    7. Davis, Fred D. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 1995. "Determinants of Decision Rule Use in a Production Planning Task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 145-157, August.
    8. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    9. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    10. Robert E. Kraut & Ronald E. Rice & Colleen Cool & Robert S. Fish, 1998. "Varieties of Social Influence: The Role of Utility and Norms in the Success of a New Communication Medium," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 437-453, August.
    11. Dorothy Leonard-Barton & Isabelle Deschamps, 1988. "Managerial Influence in the Implementation of New Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(10), pages 1252-1265, October.
    12. Shirley Taylor & Peter A. Todd, 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 144-176, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    2. Agarwal, Reeti & Rastogi, Sanjay & Mehrotra, Ankit, 2009. "Customers’ perspectives regarding e-banking in an emerging economy," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 340-351.
    3. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    4. Christopher R. Plouffe & John S. Hulland & Mark Vandenbosch, 2001. "Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions—Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 208-222, June.
    5. Peng, Zeyu & Sun, Yongqiang & Guo, Xitong, 2018. "Antecedents of employees’ extended use of enterprise systems: An integrative view of person, environment, and technology," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 104-120.
    6. Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Nripendra P. Rana & Anand Jeyaraj & Marc Clement & Michael D. Williams, 2019. "Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 719-734, June.
    7. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 0. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    8. Jaeki Song & Fatemeh Mariam Zahedi, 2005. "A Theoretical Approach to Web Design in E-Commerce: A Belief Reinforcement Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(8), pages 1219-1235, August.
    9. Donglin Han & Huiying (Cynthia) Hou & Hao Wu & Joseph H. K. Lai, 2021. "Modelling Tourists’ Acceptance of Hotel Experience-Enhancement Smart Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Frambach, Ruud T. & Schillewaert, Niels, 2002. "Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 163-176, February.
    11. Kathryn L. Heinze & Justin E. Heinze, 2020. "Individual innovation adoption and the role of organizational culture," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 561-586, June.
    12. Andrei OGREZEANU, 2015. "Models Of Technology Adoption: An Integrative Approach," Network Intelligence Studies, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 5, pages 55-67, June.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13000 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2076 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Koo, Chulmo & Chung, Namho, 2014. "Examining the eco-technological knowledge of Smart Green IT adoption behavior: A self-determination perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 140-155.
    16. Chang, Yung-Chi & Enkhjargal, Uguumur & Huang, Chen-I & Lin, Wen-Ling & Ho, Chi-Ming, 2020. "Factors Affecting the Internet Banking Adoption," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 54(3), pages 117-131.
    17. Yang, Kiseol, 2012. "Consumer technology traits in determining mobile shopping adoption: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 484-491.
    18. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    19. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13613 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Rajiv Sabherwal & Anand Jeyaraj & Charles Chowa, 2006. "Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1849-1864, December.
    21. Kim, Hyo-Jeong & Mannino, Michael & Nieschwietz, Robert J., 2009. "Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: Impact of technology features and complexity," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 214-228.
    22. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Morris, Michael G. & Ackerman, Phillip L., 2000. "A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 33-60, September.
    23. Kuo-Yu Huang & Yea-Ru Chuang, 2016. "A task–technology fit view of job search website impact on performance effects: An empirical analysis from Taiwan," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1253943-125, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:46:y:2000:i:2:p:186-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.