Network effects in technology acceptance: Laboratory experimental evidence

International Journal of Information Management

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 68-77

  Pontiggia, Andrea ^a   Virili, Francesco ^b  

^a CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CASSINO AND SOUTHERN LAZIO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Laboratory experiment; Network effects; Network externalities; Technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER NETWORKS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT;

EMPIRICAL MEASUREMENT; EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE; LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS; MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS; NETWORK EFFECTS; NETWORK EXTERNALITY; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL;

ACCEPTANCE TESTS;

EID: 73649097577     PISSN: 02684012     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (1991) 179-211
2. Arbuckle J. Amos 4.0 users guide (1999), SPSS Publisher, Chicago
3. Arthur W.B. Positive feedbacks in the economy. Scientific American 262 (1990) 92-99
4. Bagozzi R.P., and Lee K.H. Multiple routes for social influence: The role of compliance, internalization, and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly 65 (2002) 226-247
5. Bailey B.P., and Konstan J.A. Are informal tools better?: Comparing DEMAIS, pencil and paper, and authorware for early multimedia design. SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (2003), ACM New York, NY, USA pp. 313-320
6. Brynjolfsson E., and Kemerer C.F. Network externalities in microcomputer software: An econometric analysis of the spreadsheet market. Management Science 42 (1996) 1627-1647
7. Burton-Jones, A. (2005). New Perspectives on the System Usage Construct. PhD, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
8. Burton-Jones A., and Gallivan M.J. Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: A multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly 31 (2007) 657-679
9. Burton-Jones A., and Straub Jr. D.W. Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research 17 (2006) 228-246
10. Campbell D.J. Task complexity: A review and analysis. The Academy of Management Review 13 (1988) 40-52
11. Chuan-Chuan Lin J., and Lu H. Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site. International Journal of Information Management 20 (2000) 197-208
12. David P.A., and Greenstein S. The economics of compatibility standards: An introduction to recent research. The Economics of Innovations and New Technology 1 (1990) 3-41
13. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (1989) 319-340
14. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R.P., and Warshaw P.R. User acceptance of computer-technology-a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35 (1989) 982-1003
15. Economides N. The economics of networks. International Journal of Industrial Organization 14 (1996) 673-699
16. Farrell J., and Klemperer P. Coordination and lock-in: Competition with switching costs and network effects. In: Armstrong M., and Porter R. (Eds). Handbook of Industrial Organization Vol. 3 (2007), North Holland
17. Farrell J., and Saloner G. Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics 16 (1985) 70-83
18. Fishbein M., and Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior -an introduction to theory and research (1975), Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading, Mass
19. Gefen D., Straub D.W., and Boudreau M.C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4 (2000) 1-77
20. Ghorab K.E. The impact of technology acceptance considerations on system usage, and adopted level of technological sophistication: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management 17 (1997) 249-259
21. Hirschheim R. Introduction to the special issue on "Quo Vadis TAM-issues and reflections on technology acceptance research". Journal of the AIS 8 (2007) 18
22. Hu T., and Bentler M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological methods 3 (1998) 424-453
23. Katz M.L., and Shapiro C. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review 75 (1985) 424-440
24. Katz M.L., and Shapiro C. Systems competition and network effects. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1994) 93-115
25. Kelman H.C. Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2 (1958) 51-60
26. King W.R., and He J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 43 (2006) 740-755
27. Lee Y., Kozar K.A., and Larsen K.R.T. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 752 (2003) 780 [Volume 12, Article 50]
28. Legris P., Ingham J., and Collerette P. Why do people use information technology?-a critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 40 (2003) 191-204
29. Liebowitz S.J., and Margolis S.E. Network externality: An uncommon tragedy. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1994) 133-150
30. Liebowitz S.J., and Margolis S. Winners, losers & Microsoft-competition and antitrust in high technology (1999), Independent Institute, Oakland, California
31. Lin A. The acceptance and use of a business-to-business information system. International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 386-400
32. Magni M., Angst C., and Agarwal R. A multilevel investigation of normative and informational influences on extensiveness of individual technology use. Proceedings of ICIS 2007, international conference on information systems, paper 2 (2007). http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2007/23
33. Magni M., and Pennarola F. Intra-organizational relationships and technology acceptance. International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 517-523
34. Mennecke B.E., Valacich J.S., and Wheeler B.C. The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation 9 (2000) 507-529
35. Pontiggia, A. & Virili, F. (2005). Effetti Rete e Accettazione Tecnologica. In Atti del VI Workshop dei Docenti e dei Ricercatori di Organizzazione Aziendale Milano: Università Cattolica di Milano.
36. Salancik G.R., and Pfeffer J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (1978) 224-253
37. Schilling M.A. Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal 45 (2002) 387-398
38. Silver M.S. User perceptions of decision support system restrictiveness: An experiment. Journal of Management Information Systems 5 (1988) 51-65
39. Stango V. The Economics of standards wars. Review of Network Economics 3 (2004) 1-19
40. Vance Wilson E., and Zigurs I. Decisional guidance and end-user display choices. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 9 (1999) 49-75
41. Venkatesh V., Morris M.G., Davis G.B., and Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (2003) 425-478
42. Wageman R. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly (1995) 40
43. Wood R.E. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (1986) 60-82
44. Zigurs I., and Buckland B.K. A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly 22 (1998) 313-334