Social acceptability: How social determinet can influence analysis of technology system acceptabiijty;L'acceptabilité sociale: La prise en compte des déterminants sociaux dans l'analyse de l'acceptabilité des systèmes technologiques

Travail Humain

Volumn 72, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 383-395

  Terrade, F ^a   Pasquier, H ^a   Reerinck Boulanger, J ^a   Guingouain, G ^a   Somat, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ RENNES 2   (France)

Author keywords

New technology; Norms; Social acceptability; Social context

Indexed keywords

EID: 76149127058     PISSN: 00411868     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3917/th.724.0383     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions : A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). New York : Springer-Verlag.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
3. Ajzen, I., Albarracin, D., & Hornik, R. (2007). Prediction and change of Health Behavior: Applying the reasoned action approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs : Prentice-Hall.
5. Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use : A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (1), January, 142-161.
6. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour : A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
7. Arning, K., Ziefle, M. (2006). Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Computers in Human Behavior.
8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy. The exercice of control. New York : Freeman.
9. Beauvois, J.-L. (1976). Problématique des conduites sociales d'évaluation. Connexions, 19, 7-30.
10. Beauvois, J.-L., Joule, R. V., & Monteil, J.-M. (1991). Perspectives cognitives et conduites sociales. 3. Quelles cognitions ? Quelles conduites ? Cousset (Fribourg) : DelVal.
11. Brangier, E., & Barcenilla, J. (2003). Concevoir un produit facile a utiliser. Paris : Éd. d'Organisation.
12. Channouf, A., Py, J., & Somat, A. (1996). Prédire des comportements à partir des attitudes : nouvelles perspectives. In J.-C. Deschamps & J.-L. Beauvois (Eds.), La psychologie sociale. 2. Des attitudes aux attributions : sur la construction sociale de la réalité (pp. 55-65). Grenoble : PUG.
13. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
14. Conner, M., & McMillan, B. (1999). Interaction effects in the theory of planned behavior : Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 195-222.
15. Conner M., & Sparks, P. (1996). The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting Health Behaviour: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models (pp. 121-162). Buckingham, England : Open University Press.
16. Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C, Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology : Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21 (2), 333-352.
17. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology : A comparaison of two theoretical models. Management science, 33 (8), 982-1003.
18. Dillon, A., & Morris, M. G. (1999). Power, Perception and Performance : From usability Engineering to technology acceptance with the P3 model of user response. 43rd Annual Conference of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
19. Doise, W. (1982). L'explication en psychologie sociale. Paris : PUF.
20. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of attitudes. Forth Worth (TX) : Harcourt Brace Janovich Publ.
21. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 14, pp. 162-202). New York : Academic Press.
22. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour. New York: John Wiley.
23. Glasman, & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior : A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 5, 778-822.
24. Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior : A review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11, 87-97.
25. Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40 (4), 440-465.
26. Hausenblas, H. A., Carron, A. V., & Mack, D. E. (1997). Application of me theories of reasoned action and planned behavior to exercise behavior: A metaanalysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 36-51.
27. Jamet, E., & Février, F. (2008). Utilisabilité, utilité et acceptabilité des nouvelles technologies dans l'entreprise : une approche de psychologie ergonomique. Méthodes et démarche d'analyse des usages des TIC en contexte professionel. Paris : Éd. de l'anact.
28. Lheureux, F. (2009). Innovation technologique et sé curité routière : modélisation et optimisation de l'acceptation des systèmes d'aides à la conduite automobile. Thèse de doctorat de l'Université de Provence, École doctorale 356 « Cognition, langage, éducation », EA 849 « Psychologie sociale des comportements et des cognitions ».
29. LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237.
30. Laurencin, J.-P., Hoffman, J., Forest, F., & Ruffieux, B. (2004). Retrieved May 19, 2009, from www.mshalpes.prd.fr. Website : www.mshalpes.prd.fr/ luce/documents/presentations/Axe4-Acceptabilite-Forest-19052004.ppt.
31. Lefeuvre, R., Bordel, S., Guingouain, G., Pichot, N., Somat, A., & Testé, B. (2008). Sentiment de contrôle et acceptabilité sociale a priori des aides à la conduite. Le Travail Humain, 71 (2), 97-135.
32. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions : Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information system research, 2, 173-191.
33. Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to mesure the perception of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2, 192-222.
34. Pianelli, C. (2008). Représentations sociales de la vitesse chez les conducteurs et pratique du limitateur s'adaptant à la vitesse autorisée (LAVIA) : genèse d'une représentation sociale, dynamiques représentationnelles et relations entre repré sentations. Thése, Université de Provence - Aix-Marseille.
35. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusions of Innovations (4th ed.). New York : Free Press.
36. Sheeran, P., & Taylor, S. (1999). Predicting intentions to use condoms : A metaanalysis and comparison of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1624-1675.
37. Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss : An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 843-851.
38. Tacken, M., Marcellini, F., Mollenkopf, H., Ruoppila, I., & Szeman, Z. (2005). Use and acceptance of new technology by older people : Findings of the international MOBILATE survey « Enhancing mobility in later life ». Gerontechnology, 3, 126-137.
39. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995a). Understanding information technology usage : A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6 (4), 144-176.
40. Taylor, S. & Todd, P. A. (19956). Assessing IT usage : The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 561-570.
41. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991) « Personal computing : Toward a conceptual model of utilization », MIS Quarterly. March, p. 125-143.
42. Tricot, A., Plégat-Soutjis, F., Camps, J.-F., Amiel, A., Lutz, G., & Morcillo, A. (2003). Utilité, utilisabilité, acceptabilité : interpréter les relations entre trois dimensions de l'évaluation des EIAH. In C. Desmoulins, P. Marquet, & D. Bouhineau (Eds.), Environnements informatiques pour I'apprentissage humain (pp. 391-402). Paris : atief/INRP.
43. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for direction ? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24, 115-139.
44. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology : Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425-478.
45. Zuckerman, M. (1990). The psychophysiology of sensation seeking, Journal of Psychology, 58, 313-334.
46. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioural expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.