Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model

Information and Management

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 191-204

  Legris, Paul ^a   Ingham, John ^b   Collerette, Pierre ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC EN OUTAOUAIS   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Change management; Ease of use; Information technology; Innovation; IS use; Technology acceptance model; Usefulness

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RELIABILITY;

CHANGE MANAGEMENT;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0036438511     PISSN: 03787206     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Agarwal R., Prasad J. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences. 28(3):1997;557-582.
2. Agarwal R., Prasad J. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences. 30(2):1999;361-391.
3. I. Ajzen, M. Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
4. Bailey J.E., Pearson S.W. Development of a tool for measuring and analysing computer user satisfaction. Management Sciences. 29(5):1983;530-545.
5. Bajaj A., Nidumolu S.R. A feedback model to understand information system usage. Information and Management. 33:1998;213-224.
6. Chau P.Y.K. An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by systems developers. Information and Management. 30:1996;269-280.
7. Cheney P.H., Mann R.I., Amoroso D.L. Organizational factors affecting the success of end-user computing. Journal of Management Information Systems. III(1):1986;65-80.
8. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technologies. MIS Quarterly. 13(3):1989;319-340.
9. Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions, and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man Machine Studies. 38:1993;475-487.
10. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R., Warshaw P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science. 35(8):1989;982-1003.
11. Dishaw M.T., Strong D.M. Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information and Management. 36:1999;9-21.
12. M. Fishbein, I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
13. Gefen D., Keil M. The impact of developer responsiveness on perceptions of usefulness and ease of use: an extension of the technology acceptance model. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems. 29(2):1998;35-49.
14. Hu P.J., Chau P.Y.K., Liu Sheng O.R., Yan Tam K. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems. 16(2):1999;91-112.
15. M. Igbaria, N. Zinatelli, P. Cragg, A. Cavaye, Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model, MIS Quarterly, September (1997) 279-302.
16. Jackson C.M., Chow S., Leitch R.A. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences. 28(2):1997;357-389.
17. Karahanna E., Straub D.W., Chervany N.L. Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly. 23(2):1999;183-213.
18. Keil M., Beranek P.M., Konsynski B.R. Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decision Support Systems. 13:1995;75-91.
19. Lucas H.C., Spitler V.K. Technology use and performance: a field study of broker workstations. Decisions Sciences. 30(2):1999;291-311.
20. Mathieson K. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research. 2(3):1991;173-191.
21. W.J. Orlikowski, J.D. Hofman, An improvisational model for change management: the case of groupware technologies, Sloan Management Review Winter (1997) 11-21.
22. W.J. Orlikowski, M.J. Tyre, Exploiting opportunities for technological improvement in organizations, Sloan Management Review (1993) 13-26.
23. E.V. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition, The Free Press, New York, 1995.
24. Subramanian G.H. A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decision Sciences. 25(5/6):1994;863-874.
25. Szajna B. Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science. 42(1):1996;85-92.
26. Taylor S., Todd P. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research. 6(2):1995;144-176.
27. S. Taylor, P. Todd, Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience, MIS Quarterly, December (1995) 561-570.
28. Venkatesh V., Davis F.D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences. 27(3):1996;451-481.
29. Venkatesh V., Davis F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science. 46(2):2000;186-204.
30. Venkatesh V., Morris M.G. Why do not men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly. 24(1):2000;115-139.