FUNCTION-BASED ANALYSIS OF AN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE WEBSITE

Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2003

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 475-484

  Lin, Julian ^a   Chan, Hock Chuan ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

e commerce; ease of use; Function based analysis; intention to use; purchase; search; technology acceptance model; usefulness

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE;

E- COMMERCES; EASE-OF-USE; FUNCTION-BASED ANALYSE; FUNCTIONS LEVEL; INTENTION TO USE; PERCEIVED EASE-OF-USE; PURCHASE; SEARCH; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL; USEFULNESS;

SURVEYS;

EID: 33846117684     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Adams D. A, Nelson, R. R., and Todd, P. A. “Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication,” MIS Quarterly (16:2), 1992, pp. 227-247.
2. Agarwal, R., and Karahanna E. “Time Flies When You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage,” MIS Quarterly (24:4), December 2000, pp. 665-694.
3. Ajzen, I. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, The Dorsey Press, Chicago, 1988.
4. Chau, P. Y. K. “An Empirical Assessment of a Modified Technology Acceptance Model,” Journal of Management Information Systems (13:2), 1996, pp. 185-204.
5. Chin, W. W., and Todd, P. A. “On the Use, Usefulness, and Ease of Use of Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution,” MIS Quarterly (19:2), June 1995, pp. 237-246.
6. Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. “Construct Validity in Psychological Tests,” Psychological Bulletin (52), 1955, pp. 281-302.
7. Davis, F. D. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly (13:3), September 1989, pp. 319-339.
8. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology (22:14), 1992, pp. 1111-1132.
9. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science (35:8), 1989, pp. 982-1002.
10. Dishaw, M. T. and Strong, D. M. “Extending the Technology Acceptance Model with Task–Technology Fit Constructs,” Information & Management (36:1), July 1999, pp. 9-21.
11. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
12. Gefen, D., and Straub, D. W. “Gender Differences in Perception and Adoption of E-Mail: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model,” MIS Quarterly (21:4), December 1997, pp. 389-400.
13. Gefen, D., and Straub, D. W. “The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (1:8), 2000, pp. 1-28.
14. Goodhue, D. L. “Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems,” Management Science (41:12), 1995, pp. 1827-1844.
15. Goodhue, D. L. and Thompson, R. L. “Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance,” MIS Quarterly (19:2), June 1995, pp. 213-236.
16. Griffith, T. L. “Technology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking,” Academy of Management Review (24:3), 1999, pp. 472-488
17. th ed.), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998.
18. Hendrickson, A. R., Massey, P. D., and Cronan, T. P. “On the Test-Retest Reliability of PU and PEOU,” MIS Quarterly (17:2), June 1993, pp. 227-230.
19. Hong, W., Thong, Y. L. J., Wong, W., and Tam, K. “Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and Systems Characteristics,” Journal of Management Information Systems (18:3), Winter 2001/2002, pp. 97-124.
20. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., and Gordon, G. B. “Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usage Via a Structural Equation Model,” Journal of Management Information Systems (11:4), 1995, pp. 87-114.
21. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., and Cavaye, A. L. M. “Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model,” MIS Quarterly (21:3), September 1997, pp. 279-305.
22. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., and Chervany, N. L. “Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs,” MIS Quarterly (23:2), June 1999, pp. 183-213.
23. Legris, P., Ingham, J., and Collerette, P. “Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Ccritical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model,” Information & Management 40, 2003, pp. 191-204
24. Mathieson, K. “Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Information Systems Research (2:3), 1991, pp. 173-191.
25. Moore, G. C., and Benbasat, I. “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research (2:3), 1991, pp. 192-222.
26. rd ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
27. Szajna, B. “Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model,” Management Science (42:1 ), 1996, pp. 85-92.
28. Szajna, B. “Software Evaluation and Choice: Predictive Validation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument,” MIS Quarterly (18:3), September 1994, pp. 319-324.
29. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., and Howell, J. M. “Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization,” MIS Quarterly (15:1), March 1991, pp. 125-142.
30. Venkatesh, V. “Determinants of PEOU: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model,” Information Systems Research (11:4), 2000, pp. 342-365.
31. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management Science (46:2), 2000, pp. 186-204.