Development of an instrument to measure the acceptance of internet technology by consumers

Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Volumn 37, Issue , 2004, Pages 4143-4152

  Gardner, Christina ^a   Amoroso, Donald L ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE; INTERNET TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODELS (TAM); THEORY OF REASONED ACTION (TRA);

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CUSTOMER SATISFACTION; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

INTERNET;

EID: 12344303026     PISSN: 10603425     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
2. Agarwal, R. & Karahanna, E. (2000). "Time flies when you are having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage," MIS Quarterly, 24, 665-694.
3. Agarwal, R. and Sambamurthy, V. (2002) "Principles and Models for Organizing the IT Function," MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.1-16.
4. Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1999) "Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?" Decision Sciences, Vol.30, No.2, pp.361-391.
5. Amoroso, D. (2003) "Web Assimilation and Corporate Culture: Assessing the Chatterjee, Grewal, and Sambamurthy Model," AMCIS '03, Tampa, Florida, August 4-6, 2003.
6. Amoroso, D. (2002) "Successful Penetration into the e-Business Environment: An Empirical Study," HICSS-36 Proceedings, Kona-Kailua, Hawaii, January 7, 2002.
7. Chatterjee, D., Grewal R., and Sambamurthy, V. (2002). "Shaping Up for E-Commerce: Institutional Enablers of the Organizational Assimilation of Web Technologies," MIS Quarterly, June 2002. pp.65-89.
8. Chau, P.Y.K. (1996). "An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model." Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 185-204.
9. Chau, P. and Hu, P. (2001) "Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model of Comparison Approach," Decision Sciences, Vol.32, No.4, pp.699-719.
10. Chin, W. and Todd, P. (1995) "On the Use, Usefulness, and Ease of Use of Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution," MIS Quarterly, Vol.19, No.2, pp.237-246.
11. Compeau, D., Higgins, C., and Huff, S. (1999) "Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study," MIS Quarterly, Vol23, No.2, pp.145-158.
12. Cooper, R. and R. Zmud. (1990) "Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach," Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 123-139.
13. Davis, F.D. (1986). "A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results," Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
14. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). "User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models," Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
15. DeLone, W. and E. McLean. "Information Systems Success: The Question for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, March 1992, pp. 60-95.
16. Fichman, R. and C. Kemerer. (1999) "The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps," Information Systems Research, September 1999, pp. 255-275.
17. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Researh. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18. Gefen, D., & Straub, D.W. (1997). "Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model," MIS Quarterly, 389-400.
19. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., & Davis, G.B. (1995). "Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model," Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 87-114.
20. Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., & Baroudi, J.J. (1996). "A motivational model of microcomputer usage," Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 127-143.
21. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A.L.M. (1997). "Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model," MIS Quarterly, 21, 279-305.
22. Jarvenpaa, S. and B. Ives. (1991) "Executive Involvement and Participation in the Management of Information Technology," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 205-227.
23. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2002). "Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model," Information & Management, 40, 191-204.
24. Mathieson, K. (1991) "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, pp.173-191.
25. Moore, G. and I. Benbasat. (1991) "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting New Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, Vol 2, No.3, pp. 192-222.
26. Purvis, R., V. Sambamurthy, and R. Zmud. (2001) "The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Study," Organizational Science, March-April 2001, pp. 117-135.
27. Rogers, E.M., & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press.
28. Sethi, V. and W. King. (1994) "Development of Measures to Assess the Extent to Which an Information Technology Application Provides Competitive Advantage, Management Science, Vol. 40, No. 12, pp. 1601-1627.
29. Straub, D., Limayem, M. and Karahanna-Evaristo, E. (1995) "Measuring system usage: Implications for IS theory testing," Management Science, Vol. 41, pp.1328-1342.
30. Sun, H. (2003). "An Integrative Analysis of TAM: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Technology Acceptance Model", AMCIS '03, Tampa, Florida, August 4, 2003.
31. Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2003). "A new perspective to analyze user technology acceptance," Working Paper, Syracuse University.
32. Swanson, E. (1994) "Information Systems Innovation Among Organizations," Management Science, pp. 1069-1093.
33. Szajna, B. (1994) "Software Evaluation and Choice: Predictive Validation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument," MIS Quarterly, Vol.18, No.3, pp.319-324.
34. Taylor, S and P. Todd. (1995) "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 144-176.
35. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 561-570.
36. van der Heijden, H. (2000). "Using the technology acceptance model to predict website usage: Extensions and Empirical Test," Serie Research Memoranda.
37. Van de Ven, A. (1986) "Central Problems in the Management of Innovations," Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 590-607.
38. Venkatesh, V. (1999). "Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation," MIS Quarterly, 23, 239-260.
39. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). "A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies," Management Science, 46, 186-204.
40. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M.G. (2000). "Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior." MIS Quarterly, 24, 115-139.