User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/227446117
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical

Models
Article in Management Science · August 1989

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Source: RePEc
CITATIONS READS
11,482 15,505
3 authors, including:
Fred D. Davis Richard Bagozzi

University of Arkansas University of Michigan
83 PUBLICATIONS 68,297 CITATIONS 339 PUBLICATIONS 71,031 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Reshoring from a demand-side perspective View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Fred D. Davis on 18 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Author(s): Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi and Paul R. Warshaw
Source: Management Science, Vol. 35, No. 8 (Aug., 1989), pp. 982-1003
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632151 .
Accessed: 06/02/2014 14:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Management Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Vol. 35, No. 8, August 1989
Primitedin U.S.A.
USER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY:

A COMPARISON OF TWO THEORETICAL MODELS*
FRED D. DAVIS, RICHARD P. BAGOZZI AND PAUL R. WARSHAW
School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1234
School QfBusiness Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1234
School of Business Administration, California Polytechnic State University, San Lids Obispa,
California 93407
Computer systems cannot improve organizational performance if they aren't used. Unfortu-
nately, resistance to end-user systems by managers and professionals is a widespread problem.
To better predict, explain, and increase user acceptance, we need to better understand why people
accept or reject computers. This research addresses the ability to predict peoples' computer ac-
ceptance from a measure of their intentions, and the ability to explain their intentions in terms
of their attitudes,subjectivenorms, perceivedusefulness,perceivedease of use, and relatedvariables.
In a longitudinal study of 107 users, intentions to use a specific system, measured after a one-
hour introduction to the system, were correlated0.35 with system use 14 weeks later.The intention-
usage correlation was 0.63 at the end of this time period. Perceived usefulness strongly influenced
peoples' intentions, explaining more than half of the variance in intentions at the end of 14 weeks.
Perceived ease of use had a small but significant effect on intentions as well, although this effect
subsided over time. Attitudes only partially mediated the effects of these beliefs on intentions.
Subjective norms had no effect on intentions. These results suggest the possibility of simple but
powerful models of the determinantsof user acceptance, with practicalvalue for evaluatingsystems
and guiding managerial interventions aimed at reducing the problem of underutilized computer
technology.
(INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; USER ACCEPTANCE; INTENTION MODELS)
1. Introduction
Organizational investments in computer-based tools to support planning, decision-
making, and communication processes are inherently risky. Unlike clerical paperwork-
processing systems, these "end-user computing" tools often require managers and profes-
sionals to interact directly with hardware and software. However, end-users are often
unwilling to use available computer systems that, if used, would generate significant
performance gains (e.g., Alavi and Henderson 1981; Nickerson 1981, Swanson 1988).
The raw power of computer technology continues to improve tenfold each decade (Peled
1987), making sophisticated applications economically feasible. As technical barriers
disappear, a pivotal factor in harnessing this expanding power becomes our ability to
create applications that people are willing to use. Identifying the appropriate functional
and interface characteristics to be included in end-user systems has proven more chal-
lenging and subtle than expected (March 1987; Mitroff and Mason 1983). Recognizing
the difficulty of specifying the right system requirements based on their own logic and
intuition, designers are seeking methods for evaluating the acceptability of systems as
early as possible in the design and implementation process (e.g., Alavi 1984; Bewley et
al. 1983; Branscomb and Thomas 1984; Gould and Lewis 1985). Practitioners and re-
searchers require a better understanding of why people resist using computers in order
to devise practical methods for evaluating systems, predicting how users will respond to
them, and improving user acceptance by altering the nature of systems and the processes
by which they are implemented.
Understanding why people accept or reject computers has proven to be one of the
most challenging issues in information systems (IS) research (Swanson 1988). Investi-
gators have studied the impact of users' internal beliefs and attitudes on their usage
* Accepted by Richard M. Burton; received November 10, 1987. This paper has been with the authors 4
months for 2 revisions.
982
0025-1 909/89/3508/0982$01.25
Copyright ? 1989, The Institute of Management Sciences

USER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY 983
behavior (DeSanctis 1983; Fuerst and Cheney 1982; Ginzberg 1981; Ives, Olson and
Baroudi 1983; Lucas 1975; Robey 1979; Schultz and Slevin 1975; Srinivasan 1985;
Swanson 1974, 1987), and how these internal beliefs and attitudes are, in turn, influenced
by various external factors, including: the system's technical design characteristics(Ben-
basat and Dexter 1986; Benbasat, Dexter and Todd 1986; Dickson, DeSanctis and
McBride 1986; Gould, Conti and Hovanyecz 1983; Malone 1981); user involvement in
system development (Baroudi, Olson and Ives 1986; Franz and Robey 1986); the type
of system development process used (e.g., Alavi 1984; King and Rodriguez 1981); the
nature of the implementation process (Ginzberg 1978; Vertinsky, Barth and Mitchell
1975; Zand and Sorensen 1975); and cognitive style (Huber 1983). In general, however,
these research findings have been mixed and inconclusive. In part, this may be due to
the wide array of different belief, attitude, and satisfaction measures which have been
employed, often without adequate theoretical or psychometric justification. Research
progress may be stimulated by the establishment of an integrating paradigm to guide
theory development and to provide a common frame of referencewithin which to integrate
various research streams.
Information systems (IS) investigators have suggested intention models from social
psychology as a potential theoretical foundation for research on the determinants of user
behavior (Swanson 1982; Christie 1981) . Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) (Ajzen and Fish-
bein 1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA) is an especially well-researched intention
model that has proven successful in predicting and explaining behavior across a wide
variety of domains. TRA is very general, "designed to explain virtually any human be-
havior" (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, p. 4), and should thereforebe appropriatefor studying
the determinants of computer usage behavior as a special case.
Davis (1986) introduced an adaptation of TRA, the technology acceptance model
(TAM), which is specifically meant to explain computer usage behavior. TAM uses TRA
as a theoretical basis for specifying the causal linkages between two key beliefs: perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use, and users' attitudes, intentions and actual computer
adoption behavior. TAM is considerably less general than TRA, designed to apply only
to computer usage behavior, but because it incorporates findings accumulated from over
a decade of IS research,it may be especially well-suited for modeling computer acceptance.
In the present researchwe empirically examine the ability of TRA and TAM to predict
and explain user acceptance and rejection of computer-based technology. We are par-
ticularly interested in how well we can predict and explain future user behavior from
simple measures taken after a very brief period of interaction with a system. This scenario
characterizes the type of evaluations made in practice after pre-purchase trial usage or
interaction with a prototype system under development (e.g., Alavi 1984). After presenting
the major characteristics of the two models, we discuss a longitudinal study of 107 MBA
students which provides empirical data for assessing how well the models predict and
explain voluntary usage of a word processing system. We then address the prospects for
synthesizing elements of the two models in order to arrive at a more complete view of
the determinants of user acceptance.
2. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

TRA is a widely studied model from social psychology which is concerned with the
determinants of consciously intended behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and
Ajzen 1975). According to TRA, a person's performance of a specified behavior is de-
termined by his or her behavioral intention (BI) to perform the behavior, and BI is jointly
determined by the person'sattitude (A) and subjective norm (SN) concerning the behavior
in question (Figure 1), with relative weights typically estimated by regression:
BI =A +SN. (1)

984 FRED D. DAVIS, RICHARD P. BAGOZZI AND PAUL R. WARSHAW
Beliefs and Attitude

Evaluations o Toward
(? biei) Behavior (A)
Behavioral Actual
Intention Behavior
(BI)
Normative Beliefs Subjective

and Motivation to Norm
comply (? nbi mc i) (SN)
FIGURE 1. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA).
BI is a measure of the strength of one's intention to perform a specified behavior (e.g.,

Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 288). A is defined as an individual's positive or negative
feelings (evaluative affect) about performing the target behavior (e.g., Fishbein and Ajzen
1975, p. 216). Subjective norm refers to "the person's perception that most people who
are important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior in question"
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 302).
According to TRA, a person's attitude toward a behavior is determined by his or her
salient beli4fs (bi) about consequences of performing the behavior multiplied by the
evaluation (ei) of those consequences:
A= biei. (2)
Beliefs (bi) are defined as the individual's subjective probability that performing the
target behavior will result in consequence i. The evaluation term (ei) refersto "an implicit
evaluative response"-'to the consequence (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 29). Equation
(2) represents an information-processing view of attitude formation and change which
posits that external stimuli influence attitudes only indirectly through changes in the
person's belief structure (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, pp. 82-86),
TRA theorizes that an individual's subjective norm (SN) is determined by a multi-
plicative function of his or her normative beliefs (nbi), i.e., perceived expectations of
specific referent individuals or groups, and his or her motivation to comply (mci) with
these expectations (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 302):
SN E nbimci. (3)
TRA is a general model, and, as such, it does not specify the beliefs that are operative
for a particular behavior. Researchers using TRA must first identify the beliefs that are
salient for subjects regardingthe behavior under investigation. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975,
p. 218) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, p. 68) suggest eliciting five to nine salient beliefs
using free response interviews with representative members of the subject population.
They recommend using "modal" salient beliefs for the population, obtained by taking
the beliefs most frequently elicited from a representative sample of the population.
A particularly helpful aspect of TRA from an IS perspective is its assertion that any
other factors that influence behavior do so only indirectly by influencing A, SN, or their
relative weights. Thus, variables such as system design characteristics,user characteristics
(including cognitive style and other personality variables), task characteristics, nature of
the development or implementation process, political influences, organizational structure
and so on would fall into this category, which Fishbein and Ajzen (Ajzen and Fishbein
1975) refer to as "external variables." This implies that TRA mediates the impact of
uncontrollable environmental variables and controllable interventions on user behavior.
If so, then TRA captures the internal psychological variables through which numerous
externalvariables studied in IS research achieve their influence on user acceptance, and

may provide a common frame of reference within which to integrate various disparate
lines of inquiry.
A substantial body of empirical data in support of TRA has accumulated (Ajzen and
Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Ryan and Bonfield 1975; Sheppard, Hartwick
and Warshaw in press). TRA has been widely used in applied research settings spanning
a variety of subject areas, while at the same time stimulating a great deal of theoretical
research aimed at understanding the theory's limitations, testing key assumptions and
analyzing various refinements and extensions (Bagozzi 1981, 1982, 1984; Saltzer 1981;
Warshaw 1980a, b; Warshaw and Davis 1984, 1985, 1986; Warshaw, Sheppard and
Hartwick in press).
3. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

TAM, introduced by Davis (1986), is an adaptation of TRA specifically tailored for
modeling user acceptance of information systems. The goal of TAM is to provide an
explanation of the determinants of computer acceptance that is general, capable of ex-
plaining user behavior across a broad range of end-user computing technologies and user
populations, while at the same time being both parsimonious and theoretically justified.
Ideally one would like a model that is helpful not only for prediction but also for expla-
nation, so that researchers and practitioners can identify why a particular system may
be unacceptable, and pursue appropriate corrective steps. A key purpose of TAM, there-
fore, is to provide a basis for tracing the impact of external factors on internal beliefs,
attitudes, and intentions. TAM was formulated in an attempt to achieve these goals by
identifying a small number of fundamental variables suggested by previous research
dealing with the cognitive and affective determinants of computer acceptance, and using
TRA as a theoretical backdrop for modeling the theoretical relationships among these
variables. Several adaptations to the basic TRA approach were made, supported by avail-
able theory and evidence, based on these goals for TAM.
TAM posits that two particular beliefs, perceived use/iulness and perceived ease of iuse,
are of primary relevance for computer acceptance behaviors (Figure 2). Perceived use-
fulness (U) is defined as the prospective user's subjective probability that using a specific
application system will increase his or her job performance within an organizational
context. Perceived ease of use (EOU) refers to the degree to which the prospective user
expects the target system to be free of effort. As discussed further below, several studies
have found variables similar to these to be linked to attitudes and usage. In addition,
factor analyses suggest that U and EOU are statistically distinct dimensions (Hauser and
Shugan 1980; Larcker and Lessig 1980; Swanson 1987).
Similar to TRA, TAM postulates that computer usage is determined by BI, but differs
in that BI is viewed as being jointly determined by the person's attitude toward using
the system (A) and perceived usefulness (U), with relativeweights estimated by regression:
BI= A + U. (4)
Perceived\
/1 (U) \
/ j \ ~~~~~Attitude Behavioral Actual

External Toward Intention to System
Variables \ / Using (A) Use (BI) Use
\ Perceived /
Ease of Use
(E)

The A-BI relationship represented in TAM implies that, all else being equal, people
form intentions to perform behaviors toward which they have positive affect. The A-BI
relationship is fundamental to TRA and to related models presented by Triandis (1977)
and Bagozzi (1981) . Although the direct effect of a belief (such as U) on BI runs counter
to TRA, alternative intention models provide theoretical justification and empirical ev-
idence of direct belief-intention links (Bagozzi 1982; Triandis 1977; Brinberg 1979).
The U-BI relationship in equation (4) is based on the idea that, within organizational
settings, people form intentions toward behaviors they believe will increase their job
performance, over and above whatever positive or negative feelings may be evoked toward
the behavior per se. This is because enhanced performance is instrumental to achieving
various rewards that are extrinsic to the content of the work itself, such as pay increases
and promotions (e.g., Vroom 1964). Intentions toward such means-end behaviors are
theorized to be based largely on cognitive decision rules to improve performance, without
each time requiring a reappraisalof how improved performance contributes to purposes
and goals higher in one's goal hierarchy, and therefore without necessarily activating the
positive affect associated with performance-contingent rewards(Bagozzi 1982; Vallacher
and Wegner 1985). If affect is not fully activated when deciding whether to use a particular
system, one's attitude would not be expected to completely capture the impact of per-
formance considerations on one's intention. Hence, the U-BI relationship in TAM rep-
resents the resulting direct effect, hypothesizing that people form intentions toward using
computer systems based largely on a cognitive appraisal of how it will improve their
performance.
TAM does not include TRA's subjective norm (SN) as a determinant of BI. As Fishbein
and Ajzen acknowledge (1975, p. 304), this is one of least understood aspects of TRA.
It is difficult to disentangle direct effects of SN on BI from indirect effects via A. SN may
influence BI indirectly via A, due to internalization and identification processes, or in-
fluence BI directly via compliance (Kelman 1958; Warshaw 1980b). Although it is gen-
erally thought that computer use by managers and professionals is mostly voluntary
(DeSanctis 1983; Robey 1979; Swanson 1987), in some cases people may use a system
in order to comply with mandates from their superiors, rather than due to their own
feelings and beliefs about using it. However, as Warshaw (1980b) points out, standard
measures of SN do not appear to differentiate compliance from internalization and iden-
tification. Complicating matters further, A may influence SN, for example due to the
"false consensus" effect in which people project their own attitudes to others (e.g., Oliver
and Bearden 1985). Because of its uncertain theoretical and psychometric status, SN
was not included in TAM. However, since we measured SN in our study in order to
examine TRA, we can test whether SN explains any of BI's variancebeyond that accounted
for by A and U.
Previous IS research contains empirical evidence in favor of the A-BI and U-BI rela-
tionships represented in equation (4). Although BI per se has seldom been measured in
IS research, several studies have measured A, using a variety of measurement method-
ologies, and have observed a significantlink between A and usage (for review, see Swanson
1982). Usefulness, and variables similar to it such as perceptions of performance impacts,
relevance and importance, have also been linked to usage (DeSanctis 1983; Robey 1979;
Schultz and Slevin 1975; Swanson 1987). Although the measures employed in these
studies were quite varied, and often unvalidated, the similarity of the findings obtained
from differing contexts suggests the possibility of fairly robust underlying relationships.
According to TAM, A is jointly determined by U and EOU, with relative weights
statistically estimated by linear regression:
A = U + EOU. (5)

This equation is inspired by TRA's view that attitudes toward a behavior are determined
by relevant beliefs. As discussed above, TAM posits that U has a direct effect on BI over
and above A. Equation (5) indicates that U influences A as well. Although we contend
that one's affect toward a behavior need not fully incorporate affect toward any rewards
due to performance outcomes contingent on that behavior, we acknowledge that, through
learning and affective-cognitiveconsistency mechanisms (Bagozzi 1982), positively valued
outcomes often increase one's affect toward the means to achieving those outcomes
(Peak 1955; Rosenberg 1956; Vroom 1964). Hence, U is hypothesized to have a positive
influence on A (as shown in equation (5), above). Previous IS researchcontains empirical
evidence consistent with a U-A link (Barrett, Thornton and Cabe 1968; Schultz and
Slevin 1975).
EOU is also hypothesized to have a significant effect on A. TAM distinguishes two
basic mechanisms by which EOU influences attitudes and behavior: self-efficacy and
instrumentality. The easier a system is to interact with, the greater should be the user's
sense of efficacy (Bandura 1982) and personal control (Lepper 1985) regarding his or
her ability to carry out the sequences of behavior needed to operate the system. Efficacy
is thought to operate autonomously from instrumental determinants of behavior (Bandura
1982), and influences affect, effort persistence, and motivation due to inborn drives for
competence and self-determination (Bandura 1982; Deci 1975). Efficacy is one of the
major factors theorized to underly intrinsic motivation (Bandura 1982; Lepper 1985).
The direct EOU-A relationship is meant to capture this intrinsically motivating aspect
of EOU (Carroll and Thomas 1988; Davis 1986; Malone 1981).
Improvements in EOU may also be instrumental, contributing to increased perfor-
mance. Effort saved due to improved EOU may be redeployed, enabling a person to
accomplish more work for the same effort. To the extent that increased EOU contributes
to improved performance, as would be expected, EOU would have a direct effect on U:
U = EOU + External Variables. (6)
Hence, we view U and EOU as distinct but related constructs. As indicated earlier,
empirical evidence from factor analyses suggests these are distinct dimensions. At the
same time, empirical associations between variables similar to U and EOU have been
observed in prior research (Barrett, Thornton and Cabe 1968; Swanson 1987).
As equation (6) implies, perceived usefulness (U) can be affected by various external
variables over and above EOU. For example, consider two forecasting systems which are
equally easy to operate. If one of them produces an objectively more accurate forecast,
it would likely be seen as the more useful (U) system, despite the EOU parity. Likewise,
if one graphics program produces higher quality graphs than its equally easy-to-use coun-
terparts, it should be considered more useful. Hence, the objective design characteristics
of a system can have a direct effect on U in addition to indirect effects via EOU. Several
investigators have found a significant relationship between system characteristics and
measures similar to perceived usefulness (e.g., Benbasat and Dexter 1986; Benbasat,
Dexter and Todd 1986; Miller 1977). Similarly, educational programs designed to pur-
suade potential users of the power offered by a given system and the degree to which it
may improve users' productivity could well influence U. Learning based on feedback is
another type of external variable apt to influence usefulness beliefs.
Perceived ease of use (E) is also theorized to be determined by external variables:
EOU = External Variables. (7)
Many system features such as menus, icons, mice, and touch screens are specifically
intended to enhance usability (Bewley et al. 1983). The impact of system features on
EOU has been documented (e.g., Benbasat, Dexter and Todd 1986; Bewley et al. 1983;

Dickson, DeSanctis and McBride 1986; Miller 1977). Training, documentation, and
user support consultants are other external factors which may also influence EOU.
Despite their similarity, TAM and TRA differ in several theoretical aspects, some of
which warrant explanation. Both TAM and TRA posit that A is determined by one's
relevant beliefs. Two key differencesbetween how TAM and TRA model the determinants
of A should be pointed out. First, using TRA, salient beliefs are elicited anew for each
new context. The resulting beliefs are considered idiosyncratic to the specific context,
not to be generalized, for example, to other systems and users (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980).
In contrast, TAM's U and EOU are postulated a priori, and are meant to be fairly general
determinants of user acceptance. This approach was chosen in an attempt to arrive at a
belief set that more readily generalizesto differentcomputer systems and user populations.
Second, whereas TRA sums together all beliefs (bi) multiplied by correspondingevaluation
weights (ei) into a single construct (equation (2) above), TAM treats U and EOU as two
fundamental and distinct constructs. Modeling beliefs in this disaggregatedmanner enables
one to compare the relative influence of each belief in determining A, providing important
diagnostic information. Further, representing beliefs separately allows the researcher to
better trace the influence of external variables,such as system features, user characteristics
and the like, on ultimate behavior. From a practicalstandpoint, this enables an investigator
to better formulate strategies for influencing user acceptance via controllable external
interventions that have measurable influences on particular beliefs. For example, some
strategies may focus on increasing EOU, such as providing an improved user interface
or better training. Other strategies may target U, by increasing the accuracy or amount
of information accessible through a system.
Following the view that U and EOU are distinct constructs, their relative influences
on A are statisticallyestimated using linear regression(or related methods such as conjoint
measurement or structural equations). Within TAM, U and EOU are not multiplied by
self-stated evaluation weights. Given that neither beliefs nor evaluations are ratio-scaled,
the estimated relationship (correlation or regression weight) between A and the product
of a belief and evaluation is ambiguous, since it would be sensitive to allowable but
theoretically irrelevant linear scale transformations of either the belief or evaluation (for
further explanation, cf. Bagozzi 1984; Ryan and Bonfield 1975; Schmidt 1973). On the
other hand, as Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, p. 238) point out, omitting the evaluation
terms may be misleading in cases where some people in a sample hold positive evaluations
while others hold negative evaluations of the same outcome. However, we expect U and
EOU to be positively valued outcomes for most people. When the evaluative polarity of
an outcome is fairly homogeneous across subjects, the corresponding belief tends to be
monotonically related to attitudes, and statistically estimated weights tend to accurately
capture the actual usage of information cues (Einhorn, Kleinmuntz and Kleinmuntz
1979; Hogarth 1974), and generally predict dependent variables at least as well as sub-
jective weights (Bass and Wilkie 1973; Stahl and Grigsby 1987; Shoemaker and Waid
1982). A similar rationale underlies equation (1) of TRA, where the relative influences
of A and SN on BI are statistically estimated as opposed to self-stated. One caveat is that,
to the extent that individuals within a sample differ substantially with respect to the
motivating impact of U and EOU, our statistically estimated weights may become dis-
torted. In view of the tradeoffs involved, we chose to use statistically-estimated weights
within TAM to gauge the comparative influence of U and EOU on A.
External variables, represented in equations (6) and (7), provide the bridge between
the internalbeliefs, attitudes and intentions representedin TAM and the various individual
differences, situational constraints and managerially controllable interventions impinging
on behavior. TRA similarly hypothesizes that external variables influence behavior only
indirectly via A, SN or their relative weights. Although our primary interest in the par-

ticular study describedbelow is to examine our ability to predict and explain user behavior
with TAM, working from U and EOU forward to user acceptance, we explicitly include
external variables in our description of the model to underscore the fact that one of its
purposes is to provide a foundation for studying the impact of external variables on user
behavior. Our goal in the study reported below is to examine the relationships among
EOU, U, A, BI and system usage in order to see how well we can predict and explain
user acceptance with TAM. In so doing, we hope to gain insight about TAM's strengths
and weaknesses by comparing it to the well-established TRA.
4. Research Questions
Our analysis of TRA and TAM raises several research questions which the study,
described below, was designed to address:
( 1) How well do intentions predict usage? Both models predict behavior from behav-
ioral intention (BI). Of particular interest is the ability to predict future usage based on
a brief (e.g., one-hour) hands-on introduction to a system. This would mirror the applied
situations in which these models may have particular value. If, after briefly exposing
potential users to a candidate system that is being considered for purchase and organi-
zational implementation, management is able to take measurements that predict the
future level of adoption, a go/ no-go decision on the specific system could be made from
a more informed standpoint. Similarly, as new systems are being developed, early pro-
totypes can be tested, and intention ratings used to assess the prospects of the design
before a final system is built.
(2) How well do TRA and TAM explain intentions to use a system? We hypothesize
that TRA and TAM will both explain a significant proportion of the variance in people's
behavioral intention to use a specific system. Although prediction, in and of itself, is of
value to system designers and implementors, explaining why people choose to use or not
use a system is also of great value. Therefore, we are also interested in the relative impact
on BI of TRA's A, SN and Z b1e1constructs and TAM's U and EOU.
(3) Do attitudes mediate the effect of beliefs on intentions? A key principle of TRA
is that attitudes fully mediate the effects of beliefs on intentions. Yet, as discussed above,
direct belief-intention relationships have been observed before. One of the theoretical
virtues of the attitude construct is that it purports to capture the influence of beliefs.
Much of its value is foregone if it only partially mediates the impact of beliefs.
(4) Is there some alternative theoretical formulation that better accounts for observed
data? We recognize that any model is an abstraction of reality and is likely to have its
own particular strengths and weaknesses. Our goal is less that of proving or disproving
TRA or TAM, than in using them to investigate user behavior. We are thereforeinterested
in exploring alternative specifications, perhaps bringing together the best of both models,
in our pursuit of a theoretical account of user acceptance.
5. Empirical Study
In order to assess TRA and TAM, we gathered data from 107 full-time MBA students
during their first of four semesters in the MBA program at the University of Michigan.
A word processing program, WriteOne, was available for use by these students in two
public computer laboratories located at the Michigan Business School. Word processing
was selected as a test application because: ( 1 ) it is a voluntarily used package, unlike
spreadsheets and statistical programs that students are required to use for one or more
courses, (2) students would face opportunities to use a word processor throughout the
MBA program for memos, letters, reports, resumes, and the like, and (3) word processors

are among the most frequently used categories of software among practicing managers
(Benson 1983; Honan 1986; Lee 1986).
At the beginning of the semester, MBA students are given a one-hour introduction to
the WriteOne software as part of a computer orientation. At the end of this introduction,
we administered the first wave of a questionnaire containing measures of the TRA and
TAM variables. A second questionnaire, administered at the end of the semester 14
weeks later, contained measures of the TAM and TRA variables as well as a 2-item
measure of self-reported usage.
Salient Belief Elicitation
To determine the modal salient beliefs for usage of the WriteOne software, telephone
interviews were conducted with 40 MBA students who were about to enter their second
year of the MBA program. We chose to elicit beliefs from second-year students since
they are very similar to the entering first-yearstudents in terms of backgroundand abilities,
and had just completed a year of study during which their introduction and access to
the WriteOne system was identical to that which entering first-yearstudents would face.
Since we wanted to have the questionnaire preparedin advance of the first 1-hour exposure
the first-year students would have with WriteOne, so we could track changes in their
beliefs over time, it would not have been practical to ask first-yearstudents their beliefs
prior to this initial indoctrination. Although they are likely to have had similar basic
concerns as the second-year students, first-year students were not expected to be in a
position to articulate those concerns as well with regard to the WriteOne system specif-
ically, since they would be unlikely to even know that such a system existed. We would
have faced greater risk of omitting beliefs which would have become salient by the time
first-yearstudents completed their initial usage and learning and usage of WriteOne. On
the other hand, using second year students increased the risk of including some beliefs
that are nonsalient for firstyear students aftertheir initial one-hour introduction. However,
the consequences of omitting a salient belief are considered more severe than those of
including a nonsalient one. To omit a salient belief, i.e., one that does significantly in-
fluence attitude, degrades the validity of the TRA belief summation term (by omitting
a source of systematic variance), whereas including a nonsalient belief, i.e., one that does
not influence attitude, degrades the reliability of the belief summation term (by adding
a source of random variance). Moreover, beliefs lower in the salience hierarchycontribute
less to one's total attitude than do more salient ones (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 223).
In view of the tradeoffs involved, we elected to pursue a more inclusive belief set by
eliciting it from second-year students.
Interviewees were asked to list separately the advantages, disadvantages, and anything
else they associate with becoming a user of WriteOne. (This procedure is recommended
by Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, p. 68.) Beliefs referringto nearly identical outcomes using
alternative wording were classified as the same item, and the most common wording was
utilized. The seven most frequently mentioned outcomes were chosen. This belief set
complied with the criteria for modal beliefs, since each belief was mentioned by more
than 20% of the sample and the set contained more than 75% of the beliefs emitted. The
seven resulting belief items, in order of frequency of mention, are:
1. I'd save time in creating and editing documents.
2. I'd find it easier to create and edit documents.
3. My documents would be of a better quality.
4. I would not use alternative word processing packages.
5. I'd experience problems gaining access to the computing center due to crowdedness.
6. I'd become dependent on WriteOne.
7. I would not use WriteOne after I leave the MBA program.

Questionnaire
Both TRA and TAM are being used to explain a specific behavior (usage) toward a
specific target (WriteOne) within a specific context (the MBA program). The time period
of usage, although not explicitly indicated, is implicitly bounded by the context of the
MBA program. The definition and measurement of model constructs correspond in
specificity to these characteristics of the behavioral criterion, so that the measures of
intentions, attitudes, and beliefs are worded in reference to the specific target, action and
context elements, but are relatively nonspecific with respect to time frame (for further
discussion of the correspondence issue, see Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). BI, A, SN, bi and
ei were all operationalized according to Ajzen and Fishbein's ( 1980, Appendix A) rec-
ommended guidelines.
TAM's U and EOU are each operationalized with 4-item instruments resulting from
an extensive measure development and validation procedure. As described in Davis
( 1986), the measure development process consisted of: generating 14 candidate items
for each construct based on their definitions; pre-testing the items to refine their wording
and to pare the item sets down to 10 items per construct, and assessing the reliability
(using Cronbach alpha) and validity (using the multitrait-multimethod approach) of the
10-item scales. High levels of convergent and discriminant validity of the 10-item scales
were observed, and Cronbach alpha reliabilities were 0.97 for U and 0.91 for EOU. Item
analyses were used to streamline the scales to 6 items per construct, and new data again
revealed high validity and reliability (alpha of 0.97 for U and 0.93 for EOU). Further
item analyses were performed to arrive at the 4-item scales used in the present research.
The four ease of use items were: "Learning to operate WriteOne would be easy for me,"
"I would find it easy to get WriteOne to do what I want it to do," "It would be easy for
me to become skillful at using WriteOne," and "I would find WriteOne easy to use."
The four usefulness items were: "Using WriteOne would improve my performance in
the MBA program," "Using WriteOne in the MBA program would increase my pro-
ductivity," "Using WriteOne would enhance my effectiveness in the MBA program,"
and "I would find WriteOne useful in the MBA program." The usefulness and ease of
use items were measured with 7-point scales having likely-unlikely endpoints and the
anchor points extremely, quite, slightly, and neither (identical to the format used
for operationalizing TRA beliefs and recommended by Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Ap-
pendix A).
System usage is measured using 2 questions regarding the frequency with which the
respondent currently uses WriteOne. The first was a 7-point scale with the adjectives
frequent and infrequent at the endpoints. The second was a "check the box" format,
with categories for current use of: not at all; less than once a week; about once a week;
2 or 3 times a week; 4 to 6 times a week; about once a day, more than once a day. These
are typical of the kinds of self-reported measures often used to operationalize system
usage, particularly in cases where objective usage metrics are not available. Objective
usage logs were not practical in the present context since the word processing software
was located on personal computers and subjectsuse differentcomputers, as well as different
applications, from one session to the next. Self-reported frequency measures should not
be regarded as precise measures of actual usage frequency, although previous research
suggests they are appropriate as relative measures (Blair and Burton 1987; Hartley, et
al. 1977).
Results
Scale Reliabilities. The two-item BI scale obtained a Cronbach alpha reliability of
0.84 at time 1 (beginning of the semester) and 0.90 at time 2 (end of the semester). The

four-item A scale obtained reliabilities of 0.85 and 0.82 at times 1 and 2 respectively.
The four-item U scale achieved a reliability of 0.95 and 0.92 for the two points in time,
and the four-item EOU scale obtained reliability coefficients of 0.91 and 0.90 for time 1
and time 2. SN, the bis and the eis, were each operationalized with single-item scales,
per TRA, and hence no internal consistency assessments of reliability are possible. The
two-item usage scale administered in the second questionnaire achieved an alpha of 0.79.
These scale reliabilities are all at levels considered adequate for behavioral research.
Explaining Usage. As expected, BI was significantly correlated with uisage.Intentions
measured right after the WriteOne introduction were correlated0.35 with usage frequency
14 weeks later (Table 1). Intentions and usage measured contemporaneously at the end
of the semester correlated 0.63. Also consistent with the theories, none of the other TRA
or TAM variables (A, SN, L b1e1,U, or E) had a significant effect on usage over and
TABLE 1
Predicting an?dExplaining Usage, Intentions and Attitludeswviththle Theory of Reasoned Actioni(TRA)
and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Time 1
Immediately After Time 2
1 Hr Intro 14 Weeks Later
Equation R2 Beta R2 Beta
(1) Explaining Usage at Time 2

From BI Measured at Times I
and 2 (Common to both Models)
Usage (Time 2) BI 0.12*** 0.40***
BI 0.35*** 0.63***
(2) TRA
BI = A + SN 0.32*** 0.26***
A 0.55*** 0.48***
SN 0.07 0.10
A= be 0.07** 0.30***
E bje, 0.27** 0.55***
(3) TAM
BI = A + U 0.47*** 0.51
A 0.27** 0.16
U 0.48*** 0.6 1
A = U + EOU 0.37*** 0.36***
U 0.6 1*** 0.50***
EOU 0.02 0.24**
U = EOU 0.01 0.05**
EOU 0.10 0.23**
Note. * p <0.05.
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.001.
BI = Behavioral Intention
A = Attitude
SN = Subjective Norm
U = Perceived Usefulness
E bje= Sum of Beliefs Times Evaluations
EOU Perceived Ease of Use

above intentions at either time 1 or time 2, which suggests that intentions fully mediated
the effects of these other variables on usage.
Explaining Behavioral Intention (BI). As theorized, TRA and TAM both explained
a significant proportion of the variance in BI (Table 1). TRA accounted for 32% of the
variance at time 1 and 26% of the variance at time 2. TAM explained 47% and 51% of
BI's variance at times 1 and 2 respectively. Looking at the individual determinants of
BI, within TRA, A had a strong significant influence on BI (f = 0.55, time 1; f = 0.48,
time 2), whereas SN had no significant effect in either time period (b = 0.07 and 0.10,
respectively). Within TAM, U has a very strong effect in both time periods (f = 0.48
and 0.61, respectively), while A had a smaller effect in time 1 (/ = 0.27) and a nonsig-
nificant effect in time 2 (/ = 0. 16). The increased influence of U from time 1 to time 2
is noteworthy. Equation ( lb), Table 2, shows that U adds significant explanatory power
beyond A and SN, at both time 1 and time 2, underscoring the influential role of U.
In both models, unexpected direct belief-intention relationshipswere observed. Counter
to TRA, the belief summation term, Z b,ej, had a significant direct effect on BI over and
above A and SN in time period 2 (3 = 0.21 ) but not in time period 1 (3 = 0.08) (Table
2). Counter to TAM, EOU had a significant direct effect on BI over and above A and
U in time period 1 (3 = 0.20) but not time period 2 (3 = 0.11) (Table 2). Hence,
attitude appears to mediate the effects of beliefs on intentions even less than postulated
by TRA and TAM.
TABLE 2
Hierarchical Regression Testsfor Relationships Expected to be Nonsignfficant
Time I Time 2
(1) Behavioral Intention (BI)

(a) BI = A + SN + E bhej 0.33*** 0.30***
A 0.53*** 0.37***
SN 0.06 0.08
E bjej Q008a 0.21*
(b) BI = A + U + SN 0.47*** 0.51

A 0.27** 0.16
U 0.48*** 0.63***
SN 0.02a -0.04a
(c) BI = A + U + E 0.5 1*** 0.52***
A 0.26** 0. 19*
U 0.47*** 0.62***
E 0.20** -0.1 la
(2) Attitude (A)

A = U + E + - bie, 0.38*** 0.44***
U 0.58*** 0.35***
E 0.01 0.18*
E bje- 0.0Oa 0.32***
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.00 1.
a: Expected and found nonsignificant.
b: Expected nonsignificant but found significant.

ExplainingAttitude. As expected, both TAM and TRA explain a significantpercentage

of variance in attitude (Table 1). TRA explained 7% of A's variance at time 1 and 30%
at time 2. TAM explained 37% and 36% at times 1 and 2, respectively. U has a strong
significant effect on A in both time periods ( = 0.61 and 0.50, respectively), although
EOU is significant at time 2 only (f = 0.24).
In both models, there were some interesting developmental changes over time in the
relationship among beliefs, A and BI. Within TAM, at time 1 EOU appears to have a
direct effect on BI (1 = 0.20), with no indirect effect through A or U, at time 2 EOU's
effect is entirely indirect via U, and the A-BI link becomes nonsignificant. TRA's belief
summation term, E b1e1,has a significant effect on A above and beyond U and EOU in
time period 2 ( = 0.32) but not in time period 1(I = 0.10) (Table 2). Our analysis
below investigates the nature of these patterns further by analyzing the internal structure
of TRA's beliefs and analyzing their relationship to U and EOU, A and BI.
Further Analysis of Belief Structure. In order to gain greater insight into the nature
of TRA's beliefs, as well as their relationship to U and EOU, a factor analysis was con-
ducted. Table 3 shows a varimax rotated principal components factor analysis of TRA's
7 belief items and TAM's 4 U items and 4 EOU items, using a 1.0 eigenvalue cutoff
criterion. For time period 1, a five-factor solution was obtained, with the 7 TRA beliefs
factoring into three distinct dimensions, the other two factors corresponding to TAM's
U and EOU. TRA beliefs 1, 2 and 3 load on a common factor which taps specific aspects
of "expected performancegains." WhereasTAM's U is a comparativelygeneral assessment
of expected performance gains (e.g., "increase my productivity"), TRA 's firstthree items
are more specific aspects (i.e., "saving time in creating and editing documents", "finding
it easier to create and edit documents", and "making higher quality documents"). We
will refer to this specific usefulness construct comprised of TRA's first three belief items
as Us. Consistent with this interpretation, Us correlates significantly with U (r = 0.46, p
< 0.001 for time 1 and r = 0.65, p < 0.001 for time 2). At time period 2, a four-factor
solution was obtained, with Us converging to TAM's U to form a single factor. We will
denote this combined 7-item usefulness index Ut, for total usefulness. Cronbach alpha
reliabilities for Ut were 0.85 and 0.93 for time 1 and 2, respectively.
In both time periods, TRA beliefs 4 and 6 loaded on a common factor which has to
do with becoming dependent on WriteOne ("would become dependent . . .", "would
not use alternatives . . ."), which we will denote D. TRA items 5 and 7 loaded on a
common factor at time 1, and are concerned with access to WriteOne, both while in the
MBA program (item 5), and after leaving the program (item 7). We will denote this
factor ACC. At time 2, only item 5 loaded on this factor, with item 7 showing a tendency
to load on Ut instead (loading = -0.45).
Hence, the factor analysis of TRA and TAM beliefs suggests the existence of belief
dimensions concerning usefulness, ease of use, dependency, and accessibility. Overall
perceived usefulness (U,) appeared to have separate specific (Us) and general (U) di-
mensions at time 1 which converged to form a common dimension at time 2. Perceived
accessibility (ACC) was comprised of 2 items (TRA beliefs 5 and 7) at time 1 and only
1 item (belief 5) at time 2.
Hybrid Intention Models. The factor analysis above provided some interestinginsights
into the dimensional structure of the beliefs underlying user acceptance. Combining the
beliefs of TRA and TAM into a single analysis may yield a better perspective on the
determinants of BI than that provided by either model by itself. Given that A was generally
not found to intervene between beliefs and intentions, our approach in this section is to
first assess the impact on intentions of the beliefs identified in the factor analysis above,
and then test whether A mediates these belief-intention relationships. We estimated the
effect on BI of the five beliefs identified by the factor analysis: U, US, EOU, D and ACC

TABLE 3
Factor Analysis of TAM and TRA Belief Items
Time I Factors Time 2 Factors

Belief
Item 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
(a) TRA Items

TRAI 0.28 0.05 0.89 0.10 -0.01 0.82 0.08 0.08 0.34
TRA2 0.27 0.13 0.88 0.11 -0.02 0.84 0.13 0.05 0.34
TRA3 0.18 0.03 0.80 0.13 -0.01 0.74 0.12 0.14 0.42
TRA4 0.17 -0.11 0.09 0.81 -0.04 0.20 0.01 0.88 -0.02
TRA5 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.24 0.83 -0.02 0.05 0.10 0.82
TRA6 0.08 -0.09 0.17 0.79 0.07 0.32 -0.06 0.69 0.30
TRA7 -0.26 0.00 -0.12 -0.34 0.66 -0.45 0.32 -0.07 -0.06
(b) TAM Usefulness (U) Items

Ul 0.90 -0.03 0.18 0.06 -0.02 0.79 0.11 0.31 -0.15
U2 0.90 -0.03 0.26 0.14 -0.04 0.82 0.07 0.22 -0.16
U3 0.91 0.01 0.16 0.06 -0.05 0.84 0.08 0.12 -0.24
U4 0.85 0.03 0.24 0.17 -0.13 0.85 0.17 0.18 -0.07
(c) TAM Ease of Use (EOU) Items

EOU1 -0.08 0.84 0.08 -0.12 0.08 -0.09 0.88 -0.06 0.07
EOU2 0.01 0.90 0.03 -0.05 0.01 0.15 0.85 0.12 -0.05
EOU3 -0.05 0.91 0.03 -0.09 0.03 0.05 0.89 -0.04 0.07
EOU4 0.10 0.91 0.07 0.00 -0.01 0.30 0.84 -0.02 0.03
Eigen. 4.83 3.35 1.51 1.14 1.06 5.87 2.99 1.27 1.01
% Var 32.3 22.3 10.1 7.6 7.0 39.2 19.9 8.5 6.7
Cum % 32.3 54.6 64.7 72.3 79.3 39.2 59.1 67.6 74.3
(see Table 4). Together, these variables explained 51% of BI's variance in time 1 and
61%in time 2. U, Us and EOU were significantfor time 1, but EOU became nonsignificant
in time 2. In addition, Us increased in importance from time 1 (b = 0.20) to time 2
(1 = 0.39). Next, we combined the two usefulness subdimensions to form the U1 index,
and ran another regression. U1 was highly significant in both time periods (1 = 0.59 and
0.71, respectively), and EOU was significant for time period 1 only (1 = 0.20).
In order to test whether A fully mediated either the EOU-BI or U-BI relationships, we
introduced A into the second equation. This had little effect on the coefficients for either
U1 or EOU, suggesting that although A may partially mediate these relationships, it did
not fully mediate them. The relationship between EOU and U,, hypothesized by TAM,
was nonsignificant for time 1, but became significant for time 2 (1 = 0.24). Therefore,
the causal structure suggested is that U, had a direct impact on BI in both time periods
and EOU had a direct effect on BI at time 1 and an indirect effect via U1 at time 2.
In order to obtain more precise estimates of these significanteffects, regressionsomitting
nonsignificant variables were run (see Final Models, Table 4). At time 1, U1 and EOU
accounted for 45% of the variance in intention, with coefficients of 0.62 and 0.20 re-
spectively. At time 2, U, by itself accounted for 57% of BI's variance (3 = 0.76), and
EOU had a small but significant effect on U, (3 = 0.24).
As mentioned earlier, to the extent that people are heterogeneous in their evaluation
of or motivation toward performance, our statistical estimate of the usefulness-intention
link may be distorted. In order to test for whether differences in motivation moderated

TABLE 4
Hybrid Intention Models
Time 1 Time 2
BI= U + Us+ EOU + D + ACC 0.51 0.61

U 0.48*** 0.35***
Us 0.20* 0.39***
EOU 0.21** -0.04
D 0.09 0.14
ACC -0.11 -0.12
BI = U, + EOU + D + ACC 0.50 0.61
U, 0.59*** 0.7 1***
EOU 0.20** -0.06
D 0.09 0.15
ACC -0.12 -0.12
U, = EOU 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.24*
Final Models:
A. Time 1
BI = U, + EOU 0.45
U, 0.62***
EOU 0.20**
B. Time 2
BI = U, 0.57 0.76***
U, = EOU 0.06 0.24*
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.001.
Note. U = TAM's general perceived usefulness scale (4 items). Us = TRA's specific
usefulness scale (items 1-3). U, = Total usefulness index (comprised of U and Us; 7 items).
the usefulness-intention relationship, we asked subjects to report the extent to which they
believed "performance in the MBA program is important to getting a good job." By
hierarchical regression, this question did not significantly interact with U1 in either time
period. We also used the sum of the three evaluation terms (ei) corresponding to TRA
belief items 1-3 as an indicant of subjects' evaluation of usefulness as an outcome. This
also did not significantly interact with usefulness in either time period. Thus, in our
sample, it appears that individuals did not differ enough in either ( 1) their perceived
impact of performance in the MBA program on their getting a good job or (2) their
evaluation of performance to seriously distort our estimate of the effect of U1 on BI.
The picture that emerges is that U is a strong determinant of BI in both time periods,
and that EOU also has a significant effect on BI at time 1 but not at time 2. EOU's direct
effect on BI in time period 1 developed into a significantindirect effect, through usefulness,
in time period 2.
6. Conclusions
Our results yield three main insights concerning the determinants of managerial com-
puter use:

(1) People's computer use can be predicted reasonably well from their intentions.
(2) Perceived usefulness is a major determinant of people's intentions to use computers.
(3) Perceived ease of use is a significant secondary determinant of people's intentions
to use computers.
Although our data provided mixed support for the two specific theoretical models that
guided our investigation, TRA and TAM, their confluence led to the identification of a
more parsimonious causal structure that is powerful for predicting and explaining user
behavior based on only three theoretical constructs: behavioral intention (BI), perceived
usefulness (U) and perceived ease of use (EOU). Specifically, after the one-hour intro-
duction to the system, people's intentions werejointly determined by perceived usefulness
(1 = 0.62) and perceived ease of use (3 = 0.20). At the end of 14 weeks, intention was
directly affected by usefulness alone (1 = 0.79), with ease of use affecting intention only
indirectly via usefulness (1 = 0.24). This simple model accounted for 45% and 57% of
the variance in intentions at the beginning and end of the 14-week study period, respec-
tively.
Both TRA and TAM postulated that BI is the major determinant of usage behavior;
that behavior should be predictable from measures of BI, and that any other factors that
influence user behavior do so indirectly by influencing BI. These hypotheses were all
supported by our data. Intentions measured after a one-hour introduction to a word
processing system were correlated 0.35 with behavior 14 weeks later. This is promising
for those who wish to evaluate systems very early in their development, and cannot
obtain extensive user experience with prototypes in order to assess its potential accept-
ability. This is also promising for those who would like to assess user reactions to systems
used on a trial basis in advance of purchase decisions. Intentions and usage measured
contemporaneously correlated 0.63. Given that intentions are subject to change between
the time of intention measurement and behavioral performance, one would expect the
intention-behavior correlation to diminish with increased elapsed time (Ajzen and Fish-
bein 1975, p. 370). In addition, at time 1, given the limited experience with the system,
peoples' intentions would not be expected to be extremely well-formed and stable. Con-
sistent with expectations, hierarchical regression tests indicated that none of the other
variables studied influenced behavior directly, over and above intention.
In order to place these intention-behavior correlations in perspective, we can compare
them to (a) past experience using intention measures outside the IS domain and (b)
correlations between usage and various predictors reported in the IS literature. In a meta-
analysis of non-IS studies, Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw (in press) calculated a
frequency-weightedaverageintention-behaviorcorrelationof 0.38, based on 1514 subjects,
for goal-type behaviors. The intention-usage correlations of 0.35 and 0.63 obtained in
the present study compare favorably with this meta-analysis. Although the intention-
usage relationship per se has been essentially overlooked in the IS literature, usage pre-
dictions based on numerous other variables have been investigated. Ginzberg (1981)
obtained a correlation of 0.22 between a measure of users "realism of expectations" and
usage. DeSanctis (1983) obtained correlationsaround 0.25 between "motivational force"
and DSS usage. Swanson (1987) obtained a 0.20 correlation between usage and a variable
referredto as "value" which is similar to perceived usefulness. Robey obtained a striking
0.79 between usage and Schultz and Slevin's (1975) performance factor, which is also
similar to perceived usefulness. Baroudi, Olson and Ives (1986) found both user infor-
mation satisfaction and user involvement to be correlated 0.28 with system usage. Sri-
nivasan (1985) found relationshipsvarying from -0.23 to 0.38 between various measures
of user satisfaction and usage. Overall, the predictive correlations obtained in IS research
have varied widely, from -0.23 up to the 0.79 correlation obtained by Robey (1979),
with typical values falling in the 0.20-0.30 range. The 0.35 and 0.63 correlations obtained

for the two time periods investigated in the present research compare favorably with
these previous IS findings.
Both TRA and TAM hypothesized that expected performance impacts due to using
the specified system, i.e., perceived usefulness, would be a major determinant of BI.
Interestingly, the models arrived at this hypothesis by very different lines of reasoning.
Within TAM, perceived usefulness was specified a priori, based on the observation that
variables having to do with performance gains had surfaced as influential determinants
of user acceptance in previous IS studies. In contrast, TRA called for eliciting the specific
perceived consequences held by specific subjects concerning the specific system under
investigation. Using this method, the first three beliefs elicited were specific performance
gains. These three TRA beliefs, which were much more specific than TAM's perceived
usefulness measures (e.g., "save time in creating and editing documents" versus "increase
my productivity") loaded together on a single dimension in a factor analysis. Although
TRA's specific usefulness dimension (Us) was factorially distinct from TAM's U at time
1 (just after the one-hour demonstration), they were significantly correlated (r = 0.46).
Fourteen weeks later (time 2), the general and specific items converged to load on single
factor.
But why was it the case that U had more influence on BI than Us right after the one-
hour introduction, whereas Us increased in influence, and converged to U, over time?
One possibility relates to the concreteness-abstractnessdistinction from psychology (e.g.,
Mervis and Rosch, 1981). As Bettman and Sujan (1987) point out, novice consumers
are more apt to process choice alternatives using abstract, general criteria, since they
have not undergone the learning needed to understand and make judgments about more
concrete, specific criteria.This learningprocess could account for the increasedimportance
of Us over time, as well as its convergence to U, as the subjects in our study gained
additional knowledge about the consequences of using of WriteOne over the 14-week
period following the initial introduction. The implication is that, since people form general
impressions of usefulness quickly after a brief period of using a system, the more general
usefulness construct provides a somewhat better explanation of intentions at such a point
in time.
Combining the 3 specific TRA usefulness beliefs and the 4 general TAM usefulness
beliefs yielded a total index of usefulness U, that had a major impact on BI in both time
periods. Indeed, subjects appeared to form their intentions toward using the word pro-
cessing system based principally on their expectations that it would improve their per-
formance within the MBA program. Among the other beliefs studied, only EOU had a
significant effect on BI, and only at time 1. Over time, as users learned to effectively
operate the word processor, the direct effect of ease of use on BI disappeared, being
supplanted by an indirect effect via U,. Following our theorizing, early on, people appeared
to process EOU from a self-efficacy perspective, appraising how likely they would be to
succeed at learning to use the system given they tried. As learning progressed over time,
this concern became less salient, and EOU evolved into a more instrumental issue, re-
flecting considerations of how the relative effort of using the system would affect the
overall performance impact the system offered (U1).
The lack of a significant SN-BI effect was surprising,given previous IS researchstressing
the importance of top management support and user involvement. There are two reasons
to interpret this finding narrowly. First, as pointed out in our discussion of TAM, com-
pared to other measures recommended for TRA (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), the SN
scale is particularly weak from a psychometric standpoint. More sophisticated methods
for assessing the specific types of social influence processes at work in a computer accep-
tance context are clearly needed. Second, the specific application studied, word processing,
is fairly personal and individual, and may be driven less by social influences compared

to more multi-person applications such as electronic mail, project management or group

decision support systems. Further research is needed to address the generalizability of
our SN findings, to better understand the nature of social influences, and to investigate
conditions and mechanisms governing the impact of social influences on usage behavior.
The absence of a significant effect of accessibility on intentions or behavior was also
surprising in light of the importance of this variable in studies of information source
usage (Culnan 1983; O'Reilly 1982). Since our measure of accessibilitywas nonvalidated,
having been developed by exploratory factor analysis, psychometric weaknesses may be
partly at fault. In addition, although access was a salient concern frequently mentioned
in the belief elicitation, the system under investigation was fairly uniformly accessible to
all respondents. Accessibility may well have played a more predominant role if greater
variations in system accessibility were present in the study. Also surprisingwas the finding
that attitudes intervened between beliefs and intentions far less than hypothesized by
either TRA or TAM. Although some work on the direct effect of beliefs has been done
(e.g., Bagozzi 1982; Brinberg 1979; Triandis 1977), more research is needed to identify
the conditions under which attitudes mediate the belief-intention link. In either case, the
attitude construct did little to help elucidate the causal linkages between beliefs and
intentions in the present study since, at best, it only partiallymediated these relationships.
There are several aspects of the present study which circumscribe the extent to which
our findings generalize. MBA students are not completely representative of the entire
population of managers and professionals whose computer usage behavior we would like
to model. These students are younger and, as a group, probably more computer literate
than their counterparts in industry. Hence, EOU may have been less an issue for this
sample than it would have been for managers and professionals more generally. The
WriteOne system, while typical of the types of systems available to end users, is still only
one system. With more complex or difficult systems, ease of use may have had a greater
impact on intentions. These subjectswere also probably more highly motivated to perform
well than the general population, which may have caused perceived usefulness to take
on greater importance than it generally would. Further research on these variables and
relationships in other settings will sharpen our understanding of their generalizability.
Additional theoretical constructs such as computer anxiety and instrinsic motivation
may profitably be brought into the analysis. There is reason for optimism, however.
Extensive experience with intention measures in other contexts has consistently supported
their role as predictors of an individual's behavior (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). In
addition, the usefulness-intention relationship observed in the present data is so strong
that it seems unlikely to be totally idiosyncratic. If models similar to the final models
presented in Table 4 do generalize to other contexts, we will be moving to a situation in
which powerful yet simple models for predicting and explaining user acceptance are
available.
7. Practical Implications
What do our results imply for managerial practice? When planning a new system, IS
practitioners would like to be able to predict whether the new system will be acceptable
to users, diagnose the reasons why a planned system may not be fully acceptable to users,
and to take corrective action to increase the acceptabilityof the system in order to enhance
the business impact resulting from the large investments in time and money associated
with introducing new information technologies into organizations. The present research
is relevant to all of these concerns.
As Ginzberg ( 1981 ) pointed out in his discussion of "early-warning"techniques for
anticipating potential user acceptance problems, at the initial design stages of a system
development effort, a relatively small fraction of a project's resources has been expended,

and yet, many of the design decisions concerning the functional and interface features
of the new system are made. Moreover, at this early point in the process, there is greatest
flexibility in altering the proposed design since little if any actual programming or equip-
ment procurement has occurred. Hence, this would appear to represent an ideal time to
measure user assessments of a proposed system in order to get an early reading on its
acceptability. Standing in the way, however, has been the lack of good predictive models.
The present research contributes to the solution of this dilemma by helping to identify
and provide valid measures of key variables linked to user behavior.
A key challenge facing "user acceptance testing" early in the development process is
the difficulty of conveying to users in a realistic way what a proposed system will consist
of . The "paper designs" that typify the status of a system at the initial design stage may
not be an adequate stimulus for users to form accurate assessments. However, several
techniques can be used to overcome this shortcoming. Rapid prototypers, user interface
management systems, and videotape mockups are increasinglybeing used to create realistic
"facades"of what a system will consist of, at a fraction of the cost of building the complete
system. This raises the question whether a brief exposure (e.g., less than an hour) to a
prototype system is adequate to permit the potential user to acquire stable, well-formed
beliefs. Especially relevant here is our finding that, after a one-hour hands-on introduction,
people formed general perceptions of a system's usefulness that were strongly linked to
usage intentions, and their intentions were significantly correlated with their future ac-
ceptance of the system. Further researchinto the effectivenessof noninteractive mockups,
such as videotapes, is important in orderto establish how far upstream in the development
process we can push user acceptance testing. Throughout such evaluation programs,
practitionersand researchersshould not lose sight of the fact that usage is only a necessary,
but not sufficient, condition for realizing performance improvements due to information
technology; if a system is not really useful (even if users perceive it to be) it should not
be "marketed" to users.
Our findings have implications for improving user acceptance as well. Many designers
believe that the key barrier to user acceptance is the lack of user friendliness of current
systems, and that adding user interfaces that increase usability is the key to success (e.g.,
Branscomb and Thomas 1985). Yet our data indicates that, although ease of use is clearly
important, the usefulness of the system is even more important and should not be over-
looked. Users may be willing to tolerate a difficult interface in order to access functionality
that is very important, while no amount of ease of use will be able to compensate for a
system that doesn't do a useful task. Diagnostic measurements of the kind we're proposing
should augment designers' intuition, and help them identify and evaluate strategies for
enhancing user acceptance. Future researchis needed to test the generality of the observed
usefulness-ease of use tradeoff, and to assess the impact of external interventions on these
internal behavioral determinants.
Overall, research in this direction should yield practical techniques to evaluate and
improve the acceptability of end-user systems. The ability to take robust, well-formed
measures of the determinants of user acceptance early in the development process is
undoubtedly going to have an impact on our ability to weed out bad systems, refine the
rest, and generally cut the risk of delivering finished systems that get rejected by users.
References
AJZEN,I. ANDM. FiSHBEIN,UnderstandingAttitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
ALAVI,M., An Assessment of the Prototyping Approach to Information Systems Development, Comm. ACM,
27 (1984), 556-563.
AND J. C. HENDERSON, "An Evolutionary Strategy for Implementing a Decision Support System,"
Management Sci., 27 (1981), 1309-1323.

BAGOZZI, R. P., "Attitudes, Intentions and Behavior: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses," J. Personality and
Social Psychology, 41 (1981), 607-627.
"A Field Investigation of Causal Relations among Cognitions, Affect, Intentions and Behavior," J.
Marketing Res., 19 (1982), 562-584.
, "Expectancy-Value Attitude Models: An Analysis of Critical Measurement Issues," Internat. J. Res.
Marketing, 1 ( 1984), 295-3 10.
BANDURA,A., "Self-EfficacyMechanism in Human Agency," Amer. Psychologist, 37 (1982), 122-147.
BAROUDI, J. J., M. H. OLSONANDB. IVES,"An Empirical Study of the Impact of User Involvement on System
Usage and Information Satisfaction," Comm. ACM, 29 (1986), 232-238.
BARRETT, G. V., C. L. THORNTON ANDP. A. CABE,"Human Factors Evaluation of a Computer Based Storage
and Retrieval System," Huiman Factors, 10 (1968), 431-436.
BASS,F. M. ANDW. L. WILKIE,"A Comparative Analysis of Attitudinal Predictions of Brand Preference," J.
Marketing Res., 10 (1973), 262-269.
BENBASAT, I. ANDA. S. DEXTER,"An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Color and Graphical Presentation
under Varying Time Constraints," MIS Qiuart.,(March 1986), 59-84.
1 AND P. TODD, "An Experimental Program Investigating Color-Enhanced and Graphical In-
formation Presentation: An Integration of the Findings," Comm. ACM, 29 (1986), 1094-1105.
BENSON,D. H., "A Field Study of End-User Computing: Findings and Issues,"MIS Quiart.,(December 1983),
35-45.
BETTMAN, J. R. AND M. SUJAN, "Effects of Framing on Evaluations of Comparable and Non-Comparable
Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers," J. Consumer Res., 14 (1987), 141-154.
BEWLEY, W. L., T. L. ROBERTS, D. SCHOIT AND W. L. VERPLANK, "Human Factors Testing in the Design of
Xerox's 8010 "Star" Office Workstation," CHI '83 Human Factors in CompultingSystems, Boston,
December 12-15, 1983, ACM, New York, 72-77.
BLAIR, E. AND S. BURTON,"Cognitive Processes Used by Survey Respondents to Answer Behavioral Frequency
Questions," J. ConslumerRes., 14 (1987), 280-288.
BRANSCOMB,L. M. AND J. C. THOMAS, "Ease of Use: A System Design Challenge," IBMSvstems J., 23 (1984),
224-235.
BRINBERG,D., "An Examination of the Determinants of Intention and Behavior:A Comparison of Two Models,"
J. Appl. Social Psychology, 9 (1979), 560-575.
CARROLL, J. M. AND J. C. THOMAS, "Fun," SIGCHI Bulletin, 19 (1988), 21-24.
CHRISTIE, B., Face to File Communication: A Psychological Approachito Information Systems, Wiley, New
York, 1981.
CULNAN, M. J., "Environmental Scanning: The Effects of Task Complexity and Source Accessibility on Infor-
mation Gathering Behavior," Decision Sci., 14 (1983), 194-206.
DAVIS,F. D., "A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems:
Theory and Results," Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1986.
DECI, E. L., Intrinsic Motivation, Plenum, New York, 1975.
DESANCTIS, G., "Expectancy Theory as an Explanation of Voluntary Use of a Decision Support system,"
Psychological Reports, 52 (1983), 247-260.
DICKSON,G. W., G. DESANCTIS AND D. J. McBRIDE, "Understanding the Effectivenessof Computer Graphics
for Decision Support: A Cumulative Experimental Approach," Commn.ACM, 29 (1986), 40-47.
EINHORN, H. J., D. N. KLEINMUNTZ AND B. KLEINMUNTZ, "Linear Regression and Process-Tracingof Judg-
ment," Psychological Rev., 86 (1979), 465-485.
FISHBEIN,M. AND I. AJZEN, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introdluctionto Theorv and Research,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
FRANZ, C. R. AND C. ROBEY, "OrganizationalContext, User Involvement, and the Usefulness of Information
Systems," Decision Sci., 17 (1986), 329-356.
FUERST, W. L. AND P. H. CHENEY,"Factors Affecting the Perceived Utilization of Computer-Based Decision
Support Systems in the Oil Industry," Decision Sci., 13 (1982), 554-569.
GINZBERG, M. J., "Steps toward More Effective Implementation of MS and MIS, Interfaces, 8 (1978), 57-63.
"Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions,"
Management Sci., 27 (1981), 459-478.
GOULD, J. D., J. CONTI AND T. HOVANYECZ, "Composing Letters with a Simulated Listening Typewriter,"
Comm. ACM, 26 (1983), 295-308.
AND C. LEWIS,"Designing for Usability-Key Principles and What Designers Think," Comm. ACM,
28 (1985), 300-311.
HARTLEY,C., M. BRECHT,P. PAGERLY,C. WEEKS, A. CHAPANISAND D. HOERKER,"SubjectiveTime Estimates
of Work Tasks by Office Workers," J. Occupational Psychology, 50 (1977), 23-36.

HAUSER,J. R. AND S. M. SHUGAN, "Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference," Oper. Res., 28 (1980),
279-320.
HOGARTH,R. M., "Process Tracing in Clinical Judgment," Behavioral Sci., 19 (1974), 298-313.
HONAN,P., "Captains of Computing: America's Top 500 CEOs Benefit from Personal Computing," Personal
Computing, (October 1986), 13 1-133.
HUBER,G. P., "Cognitive Style as a Basis for MIS and DSS Design: Much Ado about Nothing?," Management
Sci., 29 (1983), 567-582.
IVEs, B., M. H. OLSON AND J. J. BAROUDI, "The Measurement of User Information Satisfaction," Comm.
ACM, 26 (1983), 785-793.
KELMAN,H. C., "Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Opinion Change," J.
Conflict Resoluition, 2 (1958), 51-60.
KING,W. R. AND J. I. RODRIGUEZ, "ParticipativeDesign of Strategic Decision Support Systems: An Empirical
Assessment," Management Sci., 27 (1981), 717-726.
LARCKER,D. F. AND V. P. LESSIG,"Perceived Usefulness of Information: A Psychometric Examination,"
Decision Sci., 11 (1980), 121-134.
LEE,D. M. S., "Usage Patternsand Sources of Assistance for PersonalComputer Users," MIS Qluart.,(December
1986), 313-325.
LEPPER, M. R., "Microcomputersin Education:Motivational and Social Issues,"Amer. Psychologist, 40 (1985),
1-18.
LUCAS,H. C., "Performance and the Use of an Information System," Management Sci., 21 (1975), 909-919.
MALONE, T. W. "Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction," Cognitive Sci., 4 (1981), 333-
369.
MARCH, J. G., "Ambiguity and Accounting: The Elusive Link between Information and Decision Making,"
Accolunting,Organizations and Society, 17 (1987), 153-168.
MERVIS,C. B. AND E. ROSCH, "Categorization of Natural Objects," Ann. Rev. Psychology, 32 (1981), 89-
115.
MILLER,L. H. "A Study in Man-Machine Interaction." National Complter Conf., 1977, 409-421.
MITROFF,I. ANDR. 0. MASON,"Can We Design Systems for Managing Messes? Why So Many Management
Information Systems Are Uninformative," Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8 (1983), 195-203.
NICKERSON, R. S., "Why InteractiveComputer Systems Are Sometimes Not Used by People Who Might Benefit
from Them," Internat. J. Man-Machine Stludies, 15 (1981), 469-483.
OLIVER,R. L. AND W. 0. BEARDEN,"Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating
Influence Attempt," J. Consumer Res., 12 ( 1985), 324-340.
O'REILLY,C. A., "Variations in Decision Makers' Use of Information Sources: The Impact of Quality and
Accessibility of Information," Acad. Managemeni J., 25 (1982), 756-77 1.
PEAK,H., "Attitude and Motivation," In Jones, M. R. (Ed.) Nebraska Sympos. Motivation, University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1955, 149-188.
PELED,A., "The Next Computer Revolution," Scientific Amer., 257 (1987), 56-64.
ROBEY,D., "User Attitudes and Management Information System Use," Acad. Management J., 22 (1979),
527-538.
ROSENBERG, M. J., "Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect," J. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53
(1956), 367-372.
RYAN, M. J. AND E. H. BONFIELD, "The Fishbein Extended Model and Consumer Behavior," J. Consumer
Res., 2 (1975), 118-136.
SALTZER,E., "Cognitive Moderators of the Relationship between Behavioral Intentions and Behavior," J.
Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (1981), 260-271.
SCHMIDT, F. L., "Implications of a Measurement Problem for Expectancy Theory Research," Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 10 (1973), 243-251.
SCHULTZ, R. L. AND D. P. SLEVIN, In Schultz, R. L. & Slevin, D. P. (Eds.), Implementing OperationsResearch/
Management Science, American Elsevier, New York, 1975, 153-182.
SHEPPARD, B. H., J. HARTWICKAND P. R. WARSHAW, "The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of
Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research," J. ConslumerBehavior,
(in press).
SHOEMAKER,P. J. H. AND C. C. WAID, "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining
Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Sci., 28 (1982), 182-196.
SRINIVASAN, A., "Alternative Measures of System Effectiveness:Associations and Implications," MIS Qulart.,
(September 1985), 243-253.
STAHL, M. J. AND D. W. GRIGSBY,"A Comparison of Unit, Subjective, and Regression Measures of Second-
Level Valences in Expectancy Theory," Decision Sci., 18 (1987), 62-72.
SWANSON, E. B., "Management Information System: Appreciation and Involvement," Management Sci., 21
(1974), 178-188.

, "Measuring User Attitudes in MIS Research: A Review," OMEGA, 10 (1982), 157-165.

, "Information Channel Disposition and Use," Decision Sci., 18 (1987), 131-145.
, Information System Implementation: Bridging the Gap between Design and Utilization, Irwin, Home-
wood, IL, 1988.
TRIANDIS,H. C., Interpersonal Behavior, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, 1977.
VALLACHER, R. R. AND D. M. WEGNER,A Theorj ofAction Identification, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1985.
VERTINSKY I., R. T. BARTHANDV. F. MITCHELL, "A Study of OR/MS Implementation as a Social Change
Process," In R. L. Schultz & D. P. Slevin (Eds.), Implementing Operations Research/Management
Science, American Elsevier, New York, 1975, 253-272.
VROOM,V. H., Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, 1964.
WARSHAW, P. R., "PredictingPurchaseand Other Behaviorsfrom General and ContextuallySpecific Intentions,"
J. Marketing Res., 17 (1980a), 26-33.
"A New Model for Predicting Behavioral Intentions: An Alternative to Fishbein," J. Marketing Res.,
17 (1980b), 153-172.
AND F. D. DAVIS,"Self-Understandingand the Accuracy of Behavioral Expectations," Personality)and
Social Psychology Blulletin, 10, (1984), 111-118.
AND , "Disentangling BehavioralIntention and BehavioralExpectation," J. ExperimentalSocial
Psychlolog', 21 (1985), 213-228.
AND , "The Accuracy of Behavioral Intention versus Behavioral Expectation for Predicting
Behavioral Goals," J. Psychology, (1986).
B. H. SHEPPARD AND J. HARTWICK, "The Intention and Self-Prediction of Goals and Behavior," In
R. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advances in Marketing Commuinication,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, (in press).
ZAND, D. E. AND R. E. SORENSEN, "Theory of Change and the Effective Use of Management Science," Admin.
Sci. Qlart., 20 (1975), 532-545.

View publication stats

User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical

Article in Management Science · August 1989

Fred D. Davis Richard Bagozzi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Reshoring from a demand-side perspective View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

USER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY:

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

2. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

Beliefs and Attitude

Normative Beliefs Subjective

FIGURE 1. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA).

BI is a measure of the strength of one's intention to perform a specified behavior (e.g.,

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

3. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

/ j \ ~~~~~Attitude Behavioral Actual

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

Equation R2 Beta R2 Beta

(1) Explaining Usage at Time 2

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

Equation R2 Beta R2 Beta

(1) Behavioral Intention (BI)

(b) BI = A + U + SN 0.47*** 0.51

(2) Attitude (A)

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

ExplainingAttitude. As expected, both TAM and TRA explain a significantpercentage

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

Time I Factors Time 2 Factors

(a) TRA Items

(b) TAM Usefulness (U) Items

(c) TAM Ease of Use (EOU) Items

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

Equation R2 Beta R2 Beta

BI= U + Us+ EOU + D + ACC 0.51 0.61

U, = EOU 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.24*

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

to more multi-person applications such as electronic mail, project management or group

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

, "Measuring User Attitudes in MIS Research: A Review," OMEGA, 10 (1982), 157-165.

This content downloaded from 130.184.237.6 on Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:36:30 PM

You might also like