Professional Documents
Culture Documents
#Venkatesh Thong Xu MISQ Forthcoming
#Venkatesh Thong Xu MISQ Forthcoming
James Y. L. Thong
Department of ISOM, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay,
Kowloon, HONG KONG {jthong@ust.hk}
Xin Xu
Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Kowloon, HONG KONG {xin.xu@polyu.edu.hk}
This paper extends the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) to study acceptance and
use of technology in a consumer context. Our proposed UTAUT2 incorporates three constructs into UTAUT:
hedonic motivation, price value, and habit. Individual differencesnamely, age, gender, and experienceare
hypothesized to moderate the effects of these constructs on behavioral intention and technology use. Results
from a two-stage online survey, with technology use data collected four months after the first survey, of 1,512
mobile Internet consumers supported our model. Compared to UTAUT, the extensions proposed in UTAUT2
produced a substantial improvement in the variance explained in behavioral intention (56 percent to 74
percent) and technology use (40 percent to 52 percent). The theoretical and managerial implications of these
results are discussed.
Keywords: Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), UTAUT2, habit, hedonic
motivation, price value, mobile Internet, consumer, technology adoption
Introduction1
Understanding individual acceptance and use of information
technology is one of the most mature streams of information
systems research (see Benbasat and Barki 2007; Venkatesh et
al. 2007). There have been several theoretical models,
primarily developed from theories in psychology and sociology (for a review, see Venkatesh et al. 2003), employed to
1
Peter Seddon was the accepting senior editor for this paper. Mun Yi served
as the associate editor.
explain technology acceptance and use. A review and synthesis of eight theories/models of technology use resulted in
the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT; Venkatesh et al. 2003). UTAUT has distilled the
critical factors and contingencies related to the prediction of
behavioral intention to use a technology and technology use
primarily in organizational contexts. In longitudinal field
studies of employee technology acceptance, UTAUT explained about 70 percent of the variance in behavioral
intention to use a technology and about 50 percent of the
variance in technology use.
157
Since its original publication, UTAUT has served as a baseline model and has been applied to the study of a variety of
technologies in both organizational and non-organizational
settings. There have been many applications and replications
of the entire model or part of the model in organizational
settings that have contributed to fortifying its generalizability
(e.g., Neufeld et al. 2007). There are three broad types of
UTAUT extensions/integrations. The first type of extension/
integration examined UTAUT in new contexts, such as new
technologies (e.g., collaborative technology, health information systems; Chang et al. 2007), new user populations (e.g.,
healthcare professionals, consumers; Yi et al. 2006) and new
cultural settings (e.g., China, India; Gupta et al. 2008). The
second type is the addition of new constructs in order to
expand the scope of the endogenous theoretical mechanisms
outlined in UTAUT (e.g., Chan et al. 2008; Sun et al. 2009).
Finally, the third type is the inclusion of exogenous predictors
of the UTAUT variables (e.g., Neufeld et al. 2007; Yi et al.
2006). These extensive replications, applications, and extensions/integrations of UTAUT have been valuable in
expanding our understanding of technology adoption and
extending the theoretical boundaries of the theory. However,
our review of this body of work revealed that most studies
using UTAUT employed only a subset of the constructs,
particularly by dropping the moderators (see Al-Gahtani et al.
2007; Armida 2008). Thus, while the various studies contribute to understanding the utility of UTAUT in different
contexts, there is still the need for a systematic investigation
and theorizing of the salient factors that would apply to a
consumer technology use context.
Building on the past extensions to UTAUT, the objective of
our work is to pay particular attention to the consumer use
context and develop UTAUT2. Compared to general theories,
in more recent years, theories that focus on a specific context
and identify relevant predictors and mechanisms are considered to be vital in providing a rich understanding of a focal
phenomenon and to meaningfully extend theories. Specifically, both Johns (2006) and Alvesson and Krreman (2007)
note that new contexts can result in several types of important
changes in theories, such as rendering originally theorized
relationships to be nonsignificant, changing the direction of
relationships, altering the magnitude of relationships and
creating new relationships. Each change can reveal the breakdown of theories that results in the creation of new knowledge
(Alvesson and Krreman 2007). In the case of UTAUT,
which was originally developed to explain employee technology acceptance and use, it will be critical to examine how
it can be extended to other contexts, such as the context of
consumer technologies, which is a multibillion dollar industry
given the number of technology devices, applications, and
services targeted at consumers (Stofega and Llamas 2009).
158
Theory
Background
In this section, we present an overview of the unified theory
of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and explain
the basic modifications we make to fit UTAUT to the con-
159
Performance
Expectancy1
Effort
Expectancy 2
Behavioral
Intention
Social
Influence 3
Use
Behavior
Notes:
Facilitating
Conditions 4
Hedonic
Motivation
Price Value
Habit
Age
Gender
Experience
160
cost for using them (Dodds et al. 1991). The price value is
positive when the benefits of using a technology are perceived
to be greater than the monetary cost and such price value has
a positive impact on intention. Thus, we add price value as a
predictor of behavioral intention to use a technology.
Experience and Habit
Finally, we add habit to UTAUT. Prior research on technology use has introduced two related yet distinct constructs,
namely experience and habit. Experience, as conceptualized
in prior research (e.g., Kim and Malhotra 2005; Venkatesh et
al. 2003), reflects an opportunity to use a target technology
and is typically operationalized as the passage of time from
the initial use of a technology by an individual. For instance,
Kim et al.s (2005) measure has five categories with different
periods of experience. Venkatesh et al. (2003) operationalized experience as three levels based on passage of time:
post-training was when the system was initially available for
use; 1 month later; and 3 months later. Habit has been
defined as the extent to which people tend to perform
behaviors automatically because of learning (Limayem et al.
2007), while Kim et al. (2005) equate habit with automaticity.
Although conceptualized rather similarly, habit has been
operationalized in two distinct ways: first, habit is viewed as
prior behavior (see Kim and Malhotra 2005); and second,
habit is measured as the extent to which an individual believes
the behavior to be automatic (e.g., Limayem et al. 2007).
Consequently, there are at least two key distinctions between
experience and habit. One distinction is that experience is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for the formation of
habit. A second distinction is that the passage of chronological time (i.e., experience) can result in the formation of
differing levels of habit depending on the extent of interaction
and familiarity that is developed with a target technology. For
instance, in a specific period of time, say 3 months, different
individuals can form different levels of habit depending on
their use of a target technology. This is perhaps what
prompted Limayem et al. (2007) to include prior use as a
predictor of habit; and likewise, Kim and Malhotra (2005)
controlled for experience with the target technology in their
attempt to understand the impact of habit on technology use.
Ajzen and Fishbein (2005) also noted that feedback from
previous experiences will influence various beliefs and,
consequently, future behavioral performance. In this context,
habit is a perceptual construct that reflects the results of prior
experiences.
The empirical findings about the role of habit in technology
use have delineated different underlying processes by which
habit influences technology use. Related to the operation-
161
162
163
164
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/05/the-evolution-of-cell-phonedesign-between-1983-2009/
165
Method
Mobile Internet Technology
Our target population was the current users of mobile Internet
technology. Our study was conducted in Hong Kong in the
context of consumer use of mobile Internet technology.
Mobile Internet supports an assortment of digital data services
that can be accessed using a mobile device over a wide geographic area. Mobile Internet enables people to exchange
messages, pictures, and e-mail, check flight schedules, book
concert tickets, and enjoy games while on the road. In a
consumer context, the use of mobile Internet is a voluntary
decision.
166
Results
nant validity, with two exceptions: one performance expectancy item and one habit item were deleted due to their low
loadings and high cross-loadings. Use, which was modeled
using six formative indicators, had weights between .26
and .40.
Structural Model
We used two methods to assess CMV. We first followed the
approach of Liang et al. (2007). Using PLS, we specified a
method factor together with the original latent variables in the
measurement model and calculated the squared factor
loadings for both the method factor and the substantive factors
(i.e., original latent variables). The average variance explained by the substantive factors was around 0.70 while that
by the method factor was under .02, thus suggesting that common method bias is not a concern in our study. Next, we
followed Richardson et al.s (2009) suggestion of the CFA
marker technique that involves the addition of a theoretically
irrelevant marker variable in the analysis (see also Lindell and
Whitney 2001; Malhotra et al. 2006). We followed Malhotra
et al.s (2006) approach for the post hoc estimation of CMV
and chose the second-smallest positive correlation between
two manifest variables (0.02) as a conservative estimate.
After the deduction of this value from all correlations, we
reran our analysis. No significant difference was found between the original correlation estimates and the adjusted ones.
Thus, this test also showed that CMV is less of a concern in
our study.
Measurement Model
We examined the correlation table for evidence of multicollinearity among the exogenous constructs (see Table 2).
The highest correlation between the exogenous constructs was
0.58. To reduce multicollinearity among the interaction
terms, the variables used to create interaction terms were
mean-centered before creating the interaction terms (Jaccard
et al. 1990). This method is consistent with that used in the
original UTAUT paper (Venkatesh et al. 2003). To further
test for multicollinearity, we computed variance inflation
factors (VIFs) and they were found to be around 4 and less
than the conservative threshold of 5, thus suggesting that
multicollinearity was not a major issue in our study.
167
Social Influence
(ICR = 0.82)
Facilitating Conditions
(ICR = 0.75)
Hedonic Motivation
(ICR = 0.86)
Price Value
(ICR = 0.85)
Habit
(ICR = 0.82)
Behavioral Intention
(ICR = 0.93)
PE1
PE3
PE4
EE1
EE2
EE3
EE4
SI1
SI2
SI3
FC1
FC2
FC3
FC4
HM1
HM2
HM3
PV1
PV2
PV3
HT1
HT2
HT3
BI1
BI2
BI3
Factor 1
.87
.82
.85
.18
.08
.14
.14
.10
.12
.17
.20
.18
.16
.15
.21
.28
.29
.30
.09
.10
.24
.08
.19
.11
.17
.14
Factor 2
.14
.21
.15
.78
.82
.82
.78
.26
.30
.30
.30
.22
.14
.15
.14
.16
.19
.14
.17
.15
.15
.09
.12
.22
.21
.19
Factor 3
.17
.14
.15
.28
.24
.25
.30
.80
.77
.75
.17
.23
.17
.16
.15
.15
.19
.05
.09
.08
.16
.07
.11
.22
.24
.20
Factor 4
.08
.22
.21
.14
.15
.14
.14
.15
.17
.15
.80
.79
.82
.85
.17
.15
.15
.30
.30
.20
.21
.19
.22
.13
.14
.19
Factor 5
.15
.07
.14
.17
.15
.14
.15
.08
.15
.15
.08
.21
.21
.24
.85
.81
.78
.15
.04
.06
.09
.09
.08
.15
.21
.24
Factor 6
.05
.07
.07
.17
.17
.24
.25
.14
.15
.16
.17
.19
.20
.14
.24
.21
.10
.70
.73
.73
.09
.05
.05
.08
.07
.10
Factor 7
.10
.08
.19
.07
.09
.04
.08
.10
.07
.09
.14
.20
.17
.18
.15
.06
.11
.04
.05
.10
.84
.82
.83
.11
.16
.21
Factor 8
.09
.17
.14
.20
.15
.24
.15
.16
.17
.19
.23
.14
.15
.15
.25
.28
.25
.10
.17
.08
.25
.10
.20
.87
.84
.85
4.40
SD
1.15
2. EE
5.25
1.02
.40***
.74
3. SI
3.76
1.20
.50***
.38***
5.18
1.08
.32***
.58***
.31***
.73
5. HM
4.60
1.28
.29***
.23***
.14**
.15**
.74
6. PV
5.15
0.91
.14**
.07
.07
.14**
.15**
7. BI
4.89
1.14
.44***
.29***
.28***
.46***
.37***
8. Gdr
0.60
.49
.08
-.04
-.04
.01
-.04
-.03
-.22***
.29***
.82
.12*
.08
-.03
9. Age
30.68
6.94
-.05
-.02
-.17**
.06
23.86
12.40
.07
.13**
.12*
.08
-.21***
.03
.11*
11. HT
4.15
1.17
.33***
.28***
.37***
.26***
-.21***
.06
12. Use
4.99
1.28
.30***
.20***
.20***
.30***
.28***
.24***
2.
3.
168
10
11
12
.73
10. Exp
1.
.71
4. FC
Notes:
.75
NA
.26***
NA
.01
.02
NA
.40***
-.03
-.05
.19***
.76
.42***
.04
-.06
.25***
.49***
NA
PE: Performance Expectancy; EE: Effort Expectancy; SI: Social Influence; FC: Facilitating Conditions; HM: Hedonic Motivation;
PV: Price Value; BI: Behavioral Intention; Gdr: Gender; Age: Age; Exp: Experience; HT: Habit.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; all other correlations are insignificant.
Diagonal elements are AVEs and off-diagonal elements are correlations.
UTAUT
D only
.35
.35
.44***
.17***
.20***
UTAUT2
D+I
.56
.55
.04
.08
.07
.00
.02
.01
-.01
.01
.02
-.01
-.03
-.02
-.03
.03
-.04
-.05
.01
.02
.31***
.03
.04
.10
-.07
-.05
D only
.44
.44
.21***
.16**
.14*
.16**
.23***
.14*
.32***
D+I
.74
.73
.03
.20***
.00
.17***
.03
.02
.04
.00
.01
.01
-.02
.01
.03
-.02
.00
-.03
.00
.00
.02
.03
.00
.00
.00
-.05
.00
.01
.03
.02
.02
.02
.00
.01
.00
.22***
.03
.02
.22***
.00
-.13*
.01
.03
-.03
.03
.03
-.02
-.04
169
1.
2.
UTAUT2
.17**
.12*
.01
.02
.04
-.12*
-.17***
.01
-.21***
-.22***
-.17**
-.21***
D only
.26
.26
.43***
D+I
.40
.40
.36***
.17**
.03
.03
.01
.04
.02
.06
.03
.02
.04
.25***
D only
.35
.35
.33***
.24***
.15*
D+I
.52
.52
.08
.17**
.08
.01
.04
.02
-.20**
.03
.04
-.02
.01
.02
.00
.02
.04
.03
.17**
.01
-.34***
170
UTAUT
Discussion
Our paper contributes to IS research by providing the logical
companionin a consumer use settingto UTAUT (Venkatesh et al. 2003) that was developed for an employee acceptance and use setting. Our model sits at the confluence of a
Theoretical Contributions
Our major theoretical contribution is in modifying UTAUT
for the consumer technology acceptance and use context. By
doing so, we extend the generalizability of UTAUT from an
organizational to a consumer context. Prior technology
acceptance and use research has investigated the phenomenon
in organizational contexts where performance expectancy is
the main driver of employees technology use intentions and
behaviors. In the case of consumers acceptance and use of
technology, other drivers come to the fore. Two such drivers
included in UTAUT2 are hedonic motivation and price value.
Hedonic motivation is a critical determinant of behavioral
intention and was found to be a more important driver than
performance expectancy is in non-organizational contexts.
Further, we delineated how various individual characteristics,
namely gender, age, and experience, jointly moderate the
effect of hedonic motivation on behavioral intention. Some
interesting results are that the effect of hedonic motivation on
behavioral intention is stronger for younger men with less
experience with a technology, while the effect of price value
was more important to older women. Thus, the addition of
hedonic motivation, price value, and their interactions with
UTAUT moderators are crucial in expanding the scope and
generalizability of UTAUT to the consumer environment.
As hedonic IS are ubiquitous in the consumer IT market, such
as mobile games and videos on iPhones, hedonic motivation
plays an important role in predicting intentions for hedonic IS
(e.g., van der Heijden 2004). We integrated hedonic motivation into UTAUT and theorized the moderating effects of
consumer demographics on the relationship between hedonic
motivation and intention. While van der Heijden (2004)
focused solely on hedonic IS, in our context of consumer use
of mobile Internet, both utilitarian features (e.g., the business
and productivity applications on iPhone, such as QuickOffice)
and hedonic features (e.g., mobile games and entertainment
applications on iPhone) coexist. Our empirical results suggest
that in such a context of consumer use of IT in general, both
utilitarian benefits and hedonic benefits are important drivers
of technology use. Future work can examine other key constructs that are salient to different research contexts when
171
172
basat and Barki (2007), have called for more research into
habit, which is under-studied in the IS literature, while others
(e.g., Bagozzi 2007) have called for alternative theoretical
mechanisms in predicting technology use in order to further
the progress in this mature stream of work. While Limayem
et al. (2007) have integrated habit into expectation
confirmation theory (ECT), we have integrated habit into
UTAUT, which reflects an earlier unification of eight prior
models of technology acceptance and use. Our treatment of
habit reflects the two main theoretical perspectives of habit
(Ouellette and Wood 1998): the stored intention view (e.g.,
Ajzen 2002) and the automaticity view (e.g., Limayem et al.
2007). Age, gender, and experience were hypothesized to
moderate the effects of habit on intention and use. Our
research has demonstrated that when predicting continued use
of IT, UTAUT predictors, hedonic motivation, price value,
and habit play important roles. Future research can extend
our model and examine potential interventions to foster or
break habits in the context of continued IT use. For example,
according to the automaticity view, changes in the environmental or context cues can already break the automatic cue
behavior link. In contrast, following the stored intention
view, changes in the beliefs that formally led to the stored
intention are more effective in changing habits.
In UTAUT2, we modeled habit as having both a direct effect
on use and an indirect effect through behavioral intention.
This is the first study of which we are aware that theorized the
moderating effects of demographic characteristics on the
habitintention and habituse relationships. We have developed hypotheses regarding how age, gender, and experience
jointly moderate the effect of habit on technology use based
on the underlying process of habit activation and enforcement.
We found that older men with extensive usage experience
tend to rely more on habit to drive technology use through
both the stored-intention path and the instant-activation path.
We thus extend the nomological network related to technology use to include a new set of constructs and associated
theoretical mechanisms.
In summary, UTAUT2 incorporates not only the main relationships from UTAUT, but also new constructs and relationships that extend the applicability of UTAUT to the consumer
context. We have provided empirical support for the applicability of UTAUT2 to the consumer context via a two-stage
online survey of 1,512 mobile Internet consumers. The
variance explained in both behavioral intention (74 percent)
and technology use (52 percent) are substantial, compared to
the baseline UTAUT that explained 56 percent and 40 percent
of the variance in intention and use respectively. The results
from UTAUT2 are also comparable to those obtained in
Venkatesh et al.s (2003) study of UTAUT in the organiza-
Managerial Implications
173
having low or even negative price value. In contrast, applications less rich in media, such as mobile picture sharing, that
emphasize immediate experience sharing among friends, may
be of higher price value to consumers because of their social
value and timeliness. Our study suggests that to maximize
profit, vendors should optimize the pricing of different applications based on their utilitarian, hedonic, or other types of
value to consumers.
Our results suggest that there is a significant impact of consumers habit on personal technology use when they face an
environment that is diversified and ever changing. In addition
to the direct and automatic effect of habit on technology use,
habit also operates as a stored intention path to influence
behavior. This demands more marketing communication
efforts to strengthen both the stored intention and its link to
behavior. For instance, when multimedia messaging service
(MMS) was introduced, mobile service providers rolled out
advertisements to emphasize a variety of scenarios where the
service can be used, such as experience sharing with friends,
sending greeting cards to family members, field workers
taking pictures on the spot, etc. These advertisements helped
to enhance the stored intention (i.e., I can use MMS in a
variety of contexts) and its link to the behavior in different
usage contexts. In retrospect, emphasizing the application of
mobile Internet in varied contexts and occasions may be a
useful strategy to potentially increase the habitual use of IT
applications. Moreover, our results suggest that the impact of
habit on behavior differs with age, gender, and experience.
Specifically, older men with extensive experience, more than
others, tend to be driven by habit. Thus, when the goal is to
facilitate changes in consumers habitual usage as in the case
of launching a new technology, more resources may need to
be targeted at older men with significant experience because
they may have great difficulty in changing their habits. In
contrast, when IT application providers want to maintain
consumers habitual use, more attention should be paid to
younger women as they are most sensitive to changes in the
environment.
Finally, the significance of the moderated effects in our model
suggests that managers can use a market segmentation
strategy to facilitate consumer technology use. Our results
show that different cohorts of consumers attach different
weights to various factors that influence their technology use,
which can potentially be attributed to the differential learning
abilities and social roles across age, experience, and gender.
First, we found that when older women are in the early stages
of using a particular technology, they rely more on external
resources to facilitate their continued use of the technology.
This suggests that on-going facilitations designed for older
women should be provided by IT application vendors if they
174
Conclusions
The current study showed that in the context of consumers
use of technology, the effects of hedonic motivation, price
value, and habit are complex. First, the impact of hedonic
motivation on behavioral intention is moderated by age,
gender, and experience. Second, the effect of price value on
behavioral intention is moderated by age and gender. Finally,
habit has both direct and mediated effects on technology use,
and these effects are moderated by individual differences.
Thus, both the TPB-based view of habit (i.e., as stored intention) and the more recent automatic activation view of habit
(i.e., as a direct link between stimulus and behavior) are
functioning together in determining consumer use of technology. Moreover, the strength and activation of habit differs
across age, gender, and experience. Overall, our study confirmed the important roles of hedonic motivation, price value,
and habit in influencing technology use and in UTAUT2,
which is tailored to the context of consumer acceptance and
use of technology.
Acknowledgments
We thank the senior editor, associate editor, and three reviewers for
their constructive comments. We also thank Jan DeGross for her
efforts in typesetting this manuscript. This study was partially
funded by research grants (HKUST6438/05H, SBI11BM04) from
the Hong Kong Research Grants Council and the Research Center
for Electronic Commerce at HKUST.
References
Aarts, H., and Dijksterhuis, A. 2000. Habits as Knowledge Structures: Automaticity in Goal-Directed Behavior, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology (78:1), pp. 53-63.
Agarwal, R., and Karahanna, E. 2000. Time Flies When Youre
Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage, MIS Quarterly (24:4), pp. 665-694.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes (50:2), pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. 2002. Residual Effects of Past on Later Behavior:
Habituation and Reasoned Action Perspectives, Personality &
Social Psychology Review (6:2), pp. 107-122.
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. 2000. Attitudes and the AttitudeBehavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes, European Review of Social Psychology (11:1), pp. 1-33.
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. 2005. The Influence of Attitudes on
Behavior, in The Handbook of Attitudes, D. Albarracn, B. T.
Johnson, and M. P. Zanna (eds.), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.
173-221.
Alba, J. W., and Hutchinson, J. W. 1987. Dimensions of Consumer Expertise, Journal of Consumer Research (13:4), pp.
411-454.
Al-Gahtani, S. S., Hubona, G. S., and Wang, J. 2007. Information
Technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the Acceptance
and Use of IT, Information & Management (44:4), pp. 681-691.
Alvesson, M., and Krreman, D. 2007. Constructing Mystery:
Empirical Matters in Theory Development, Academy of
Management Review (32:4), pp. 1265-1281.
Armida, E. 2008. Adoption Process for VOIP: The Influence of
Trust in the UTAUT Model, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Purdue University.
Bagozzi, R. P. 2007. The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance
Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift, Journal of the AIS
(8:4), pp. 244-254.
Bakan, D. 1966. The Duality of Human Existence, Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Benbasat, I., and Barki, H. 2007. Quo Vadis, TAM?, Journal of
the AIS (8:4), pp. 212-218.
Bhattacherjee, A. 2001. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An ExpectationConfirmation Model, MIS Quarterly
(25:3), pp. 351-370.
Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back Translation for Cross-Cultural
Research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (1:3), pp.
185-216.
Brown, S. A., and Venkatesh, V. 2005. Model of Adoption of
Technology in the Household: A Baseline Model Test and
Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle, MIS Quarterly
(29:4), pp. 399-426.
Burton-Jones, A., and Straub, D. W. 2006. Reconceptualizing
System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test, Information
Systems Research (17:3), pp. 228-246.
175
176
Lee, H., Cho, H. J., Xu, W., and Fairhurst, A. 2010. The Influence
of Consumer Traits and Demographics on Intention to Use Retail
Self-Service Checkouts, Marketing Intelligence & Planning
(28:1), pp. 46-58.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., and Xue, Y. 2007. Assimilation of
Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressures and the
Mediating Role of Top Management, MIS Quarterly (31:1), pp.
59-87.
Limayem, M., and Hirt, S. G. 2003. Force of Habit and Information Systems Usage: Theory and Initial Validation, Journal
of the AIS (4:1), pp. 65-97.
Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., and Cheung, C. M. K. 2007. How Habit
Limits the Predictive Power of Intentions: The Case of IS Continuance, MIS Quarterly (31:4), pp. 705-737.
Lindell, M. K., and Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for Common
Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs, Journal
of Applied Psychology (86:1), pp. 114-121.
Lustig, C., Konkel, A., and Jacoby, L. L. 2004. Which Route to
Recovery?, Psychological Science (15:11), pp. 729-735.
Lynott, P. P., and McCandless, N. J. 2000. The Impact of Age vs.
Life Experience on the Gender Role Attitudes of Women in Different Cohorts, Journal of Women and Aging (12:2), pp. 5-22.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Patil, A. 2006. Common Method
Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative
Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research, Management
Science (52:12), pp. 1865-1883.
Mehrmann, J. 2007. The Rapid Pace of Evolution in Consumer
Electronics, Ezine@rticles (http://ezinearticles.com/?TheRapid-Pace-of-Evolution-in-Consumer-Electronics&id=424542).
Meyers-Levy, J., and Maheswaran, D. 1991. Exploring Differences in Males and Females Processing Strategy, Journal
of Consumer Research (18:1), pp. 63-70.
Meyers-Levy, J., and Tybout, A. 1989. Schema Congruity as a
Basis for Product Evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research
(16:1), pp. 39-54.
Midgley, D. F., and Dowling, G. R. 1978. Innovativeness: The
Concept and its Measurement, Journal of Consumer Research
(4:2), pp. 229-242.
Morris, M. G., Venkatesh, V., and Ackerman, P. L. 2005. Gender
and Age Differences in Employee Decisions about New Technology: An Extension to the Theory of Planned Behavior, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management (52:1), pp. 69-84.
Murray, K. B., and Haubl, G. 2007. Explaining Cognitive LockIn: The Role of Skill-Based Habits of Use in Consumer Choice,
Journal of Consumer Research (34:1), pp. 77-88.
Neufeld, D. J., Dong, L., and Higgins, C. 2007. Charismatic
Leadership and User Acceptance of Information Technology,
European Journal of Information Systems (16:4), pp. 494-510.
Newell, A., and Rosenbloom, P. S. 1981. Mechanisms of Skill
Acquisition and the Power Law of Practice, in Cognitive Skills
and Their Acquisition, J. R. Anderson (ed.), Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1-55.
Notani, A. S. 1998. Moderators of Perceived Behavioral Controls
Predictiveness in the Theory of Planned Behavior: A MetaAnalysis, Journal of Consumer Psychology (7:3), pp. 247-271.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., and Thorbjornsen, H. 2005. Intentions to Use Mobile Services: Antecedents and Cross-Service
Comparisons, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
(33:3), pp. 330-346.
OFTA (Office of the Telecommunications Authority) Hong Kong.
2011. Key Telecommunication Statistics, (http://www.ofta.
gov.hk/en/datastat/key_stat.html; accessed October 5, 2011).
Ouellette, J. A., and Wood, W. 1998. Habit and Intention in
Everyday Life: The Multiple Processes by Which Past Behavior
Predicts Future Behavior, Psychological Bulletin (124:1), pp.
54-74.
Plude, D. J., and Hoyer, W. J. 1985. Attention and Performance:
Identifying and Localizing Age Deficits, in Aging and Human
Performance, N. Charness (ed.), London: Wiley, pp. 47-99.
Posner, R. A. 1996. Aging and Old Age, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., and Sturman, M. C. 2009. A
Tale of Three Perspectives: Examining Post Hoc Statistical
Techniques for Detection and Correction of Common Method
Variance, Organizational Research Methods (12:4), pp.
762-800.
Ronis, D. L., Yates, J. F., and Kirscht, J. P. 1989. Attitudes,
Decisions, and Habits as Determinants of Repeated Behavior, in
Attitude Structure and Function, A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler,
and A. G.Greenwald (eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 213-240.
Rotter, G. S., and Portugal, S. M. 1969. Group and Individual
Effects in Problem Solving, Journal of Applied Psychology
(53:4), pp. 338-341.
Saga, V. L., and Zmud, R. W. 1994. The Nature and Determinants
of IT Acceptance, Routinization, and Infusion, in Diffusion,
Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology, L.
Levine (ed.), Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute,
Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 67-86.
Sharma, R., Yetton, P., and Crawford, J. 2009. Estimating the
Effect of Common Method Variance: The MethodMethod Pair
Technique with an Illustration from TAM Research, MIS
Quarterly (33:3), pp. 473-490.
Slama, M. E., and Tashchian, A. 1985. Selected Socioeconomic
and Demographic Characteristics Associated with Purchasing
Involvement, Journal of Marketing (49:1), pp. 72-82.
Straub, D. W., and Burton-Jones, A. 2007. Veni, Vidi, Vici:
Breaking the TAM Logjam, Journal of the AIS (8:4), pp.
223-229.
Stofega, W., and Llamas, R. T. 2009. Worldwide Mobile Phone
2009-2013 Forecast Update, IDC Document Number 217209,
IDC, Framingham, MA.
Sun Y., Bhattacherjee, A., and Ma, Q. 2009. Extending Technology Usage to Work Settings: The Role of Perceived Work
Compatibility in ERP Implementation, Information &
Management (46:4), pp. 351-356.
Thong J. Y. L. 1999. An Integrated Model of Information
Systems Adoption in Small Businesses, Journal of Management
Information Systems (15:4), pp. 187-214.
Thong J. Y. L., Hong, S. J., and Tam, K. Y. 2006. The Effects of
Post-Adoption Beliefs on the ExpectationConfirmation Model
for Information Technology Continuance, International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies (64:9), pp. 799-810.
177
Appendix
Survey Items
Performance Expectancy
Price Value
Effort Expectancy
EE1.
EE2.
EE3.
EE4.
Social Influence
SI1. People who are important to me think that I should use mobile
Internet.
SI2. People who influence my behavior think that I should use
mobile Internet.
SI3. People whose opinions that I value prefer that I use mobile
Internet.
Facilitating Conditions
FC1.
FC2.
FC3.
FC4.
Hedonic Motivation
HM1. Using mobile Internet is fun.
HM2. Using mobile Internet is enjoyable.
HM3. Using mobile Internet is very entertaining.
178
Habit
HT1.
HT2.
HT3.
HT4.
Behavioral Intention
BI1. I intend to continue using mobile Internet in the future.
BI2. I will always try to use mobile Internet in my daily life.
BI3. I plan to continue to use mobile Internet frequently.
Use
Please choose your usage frequency for each of the following:
a) SMS
b) MMS
c) Ringtone and logo download
d) Java games
e) Browse websites
f) Mobile e-mail
Note: Frequency ranged from never to many times per day.