Social influence in the adoption process and usage of innovation: Gender differences

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

Volumn 37, Issue , 2009, Pages 409-412

  Mazman, S Güzin ^a   Usluel, Yasemin Koçak ^a   Çevik, Vildan ^a  

^a HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Adoption; Gender differences; Innovation; Social influence

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; ADOPTION PROCESS; ELEMENTARY EDUCATION; EXPERT ADVICE; GENDER DIFFERENCES; MASS MEDIA; SOCIAL INFLUENCE; STUDY GROUPS; TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION;

TEACHING; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

INNOVATION;

EID: 78651583940     PISSN: 2010376X     EISSN: 20103778     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319- 340.
3. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4. Isaac, H., Leclercq, A., & Besseyre Des Horts, C. H. (2006). Adoption and appropriation: towards a new theoretical framework. An exploratory research on mobile technologies in french companies. Systèmes d'information Et Management, 11, 9-50.
5. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 2(1). 51-60.
6. Lin, C., Hu, PJ-H., & Chen, H. (2003). Technology implementation management in law enforcement: COPLINK system usability and user acceptance evaluations. DG.O 2003 [DBLP:conf/dgo/linhcs03].
7. Malhotra, Y. and Galletta, F. D. (1999). "Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation". Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
8. Moore, G. C., Benbasat, I. (1996). "Integrating diffusion of innovations and theory of reasoned action models to predict utilization of information technology by end-users," in Diffusion and adoption of information technology. K. Kautz and J. Pries-Hege (eds.), Chapman and Hallpp. 132-146. , London.
9. Rogers, E.(2003). Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York.
10. Shen, D., Laffey, J., Lin, Y., and Huang, X. (2006). Social Influence for Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use of Course Delivery Systems. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 5(3). 270-282.
11. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144-176.
12. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., Howell, J. M. (1991). "Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization," MIS Quarterly 15(1). 124-143.
13. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33-60.
14. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. (2000). "A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies," Management Science, 45(2), 186-204.
15. 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.