Two types of attitudes in ICT acceptance and use

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 24, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 628-648

  Zhang, Ping ^a,d   Aikman, Shelley N ^a,b   Sun, Heshan ^a,c  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH GEORGIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^d SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL INTENTION; EMPIRICAL DATA; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES; OPERATIONAL LEVEL; TECHNOLOGY USE;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 52949110574     PISSN: 10447318     EISSN: 15327590     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10447310802335482     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K., L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54, 27-41.
2. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694.
3. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361-391.
4. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
5. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
6. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Handbook of attitudes and attitude change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 173-221.
8. Barclay, D., Higgins, C. A., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). The Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285-309.
9. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1989). Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 53-63.
10. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1994). Measuring user participation, use involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quarterly, 18(1), 59-82.
11. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychology research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1183.
12. Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 229-254.
13. Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 16-28.
14. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
15. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
16. Brown, S. A., Fuller, R. M., & Vician, C. (2004). Who's afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(2), 79-107.
17. Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. H. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699-719.
18. Chin, W. W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Crites, S. L., Jr., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619-634.
20. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
21. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technol-ogy: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
22. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 269-322). New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford.
24. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75-109.
25. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Oxford, England: Row, Peterso.
26. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
27. Forgas, J. P. (2000). Feeling is believing? The role of processing strategies in mediating affective influences on beliefs. In N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, & S. Bern (Eds.), Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 108-143). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
28. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
29. Galletta, D. F., Henry, R., McCoy, S., & Polak, P. (2004). Web site delays: How tolerant are users? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(1), 1-28.
30. Gefen, D. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3, 27-51.
31. Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1-77.
32. Harrison, A. W., & Rainer, R. K., Jr. (1992). The influence of individual differences on skill in end-user computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(1), 93-112.
33. Harrison, D. A., Mykytyn, P. P., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (1997). Executive decisions about adoption of information technology in small business: Theory and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 171-194.
34. Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40(4), 440165.
35. Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A. (1997). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 357-389.
36. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. (1999). Information Technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183-213.
37. Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 59-87.
38. Limayem, M., & Hirt, S. G. (2003). Force of habit and information systems usage: Theory and initial validation. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 4(3), 65-97.
39. Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (2005). A multidimensional commitment model of volitional systems adoption and usage behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 117-151.
40. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
41. Moon, J.-W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217-230.
42. Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychology Bulletin, 124(1), 54-74.
43. ark, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extension: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 185-193.
44. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
45. Sambamurthy, V., & Chin, W. W. (1994). The effects of group attitudes toward alternative gdss designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups. Decision Science, 25(2), 215-239.
46. Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(2), 53-78.
47. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561-570.
48. Thompson, R. L., & Higgins, C. A. (1994). Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: Testing a conceptual model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(1), 167-187.
49. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125-136.
50. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
51. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
52. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal of Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
53. Williams, L. J., Edwards, J. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2003). Recent advances in causal modeling methods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management, 29(6), 903-936.
54. Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.
55. Zajonc, R. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1-27.
56. Zhang, P., & Li, N. (2007). An affective approach to aesthetics in ICT interaction: A theory based investigation, Syracuse University (Working paper).