You are on page 1of 12

Factors Affecting Individual's Intention to Purchase Smartphones from Technology Adoption and

Technology Dependence Perspective

Submitted to
[Faculty / Department Name]
[Author / Student Name]
[Name of University]



Background of the Study

In the recent years, there has been a significant growth in the demand of the consumers
for the Smartphones. Statistics show that the sale of Smartphones in the year 2011 has reached to
115 million across the globe and the demand of Smartphones is still anticipated to rise. Apart
from offering fundamental requirements such as MMS, SMS, video call and voice call,
Smartphones are capable of developing into new medium for information (Ajax & Irfan, 2012).
Therefore, a large number individuals and particularly youth have shifted their purchasing
decision towards Smartphones. In fact, youth compose the large division of the Smartphone
owners. However, quite few studies have been carried out in past to analyze the factors that
influence the consumers intention to purchase Smartphones.

Problem Statement
Several studies have been carried out in past to determine the motive of utilizing
Smartphones and analyzing the factors that influence the usage and demand of Smartphone.
However the studies carried out in past are not focused on specific age demographics. Therefore,
the focus of this study is to explore the aspects that instill the students dependency on the

Aim and Objectives

The core purpose of carrying out this study will be to explore the factors that influence
the intention of the youngsters to purchase Smartphone from the perspectives of technology
dependence and adoption. The objectives of the study are as follow:


To critically analyze the studies allied with technology adoption and diffusion
To examine the factors that influence the youth to purchase and utilize Smartphones
To propose a comprehensive model for demonstrating the factors influencing the
consumers purchasing intention

Literature Review
Invention and Innovation
In the context of technological change, the terms innovation and invention, represent the
backbone of the procedure of technological development. In the view point of Dubois & Gadde,
(2002), invention can be characterized as the creation of new concepts whereas innovation refers
to first utilization of a new concept. Innovation is not a new term instead it is a social and
economic terminology. Systematic innovation has been defined by Egbu, (2004) as the organized
and purposeful exploration of the new technologies. It also refers to the systematic analysis of
the opportunities offered by such changes for social and economic innovation. Technological
innovation is often used interchangeably with technological change and it refers to the procedure
of creating and implementing new production, products, service capability, and technology
(Andre et al., 2012).

Technology Adoption
Technology adoption corresponds to the procedure that encompass acquisition,
adaptation, assimilation, absorption and developments in all its procedures, materials, machines,
tools, techniques, processes and methods (Bossink, 2004). Innovation as well technology
adoption are not mutually exclusive rather, the implementation of innovative technologies is
viewed as innovation. The issue of semantics by no means can be easily settled particularly while


the issues are concerned with the dynamics of the process. However, the gaps in the terminology
are sufficiently narrow to mutually understand the recurring concepts and themes (Bossink,
2004). More essentially it is the synonymous contract among the professionals on the centrality
of the innovation and technology management to growth of the industry that requires a
comprehensive understanding of the problems at all stages.

Theoretical framework
Theory of Diffusion of Innovation (DOI)
The diffusion of innovation theory proposed by Roger, in the year 1962, has formed the
basis of much of the present adoption theory researches. The theory has undergone through
multiple revisions over the past decades. Initially Roger has highlighted three factors that foster
the adoption of technology (Rogers, 2010). These factors include an individuals standpoint
regarding technology adoption, the process of adoption and the final outcome that is usually in
the form of acceptance or rejection. After ensuing refinements in the Rogers theory of adoption,
four chief factors were considered as the key to successful technology innovation. These factors
involve a social framework that fosters innovation adoption, a considerable time pan for the
adoption and innovation (Rogers, 2010).

Technology Acceptance Model

Technology acceptance model is widely applied to predict users acceptance of new
technology. The origins of TAM can be traced to the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), a model
from social psychology. Reasoned action predicts the behavioral intention, concerning what a
person would like to do or plan to do (Min et al., 2011). It suggests that individuals behavioral


intention depends on attitude about the behavior and subjective norms. Reasoned action is
concerned with the relationship between messages, attitudes, and behavior. Various studies have
revealed that these predictions of reasoned action hold in a variety of situations such as consumer
behavior and voting. According to TRA, researchers develop two influential beliefs: perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), in order to explain a users behavior with
regard to new technology adoption (Mitra, 1995). According to Davis et al. (1989), the goal of
TAM is to provide an explanation of the determinants of computer acceptance that is in general,
capable of explaining 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.
The two determinants explain users acceptance behavior are PU, defined as the degree to which
a person believes that using a particular system will enhance his or her job performance, and
PEOU defined as the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system will be free
of effort. Both PU and PEOU have a causal effect on users attitude toward using the technology
(Morwitz & Schmittlein, 1992). The model supports that attitude and PU, then in sequence,
shapes behavioral intention. Particularly, the model (Figure 1) mainly discusses the impact of PU
and PEOU on attitude toward using technology and toward the users technology acceptance
behavior, where attitude involves assessment on technology and behavioral intention represents
the degree to which individuals are prompted to behave (Morwitz et al., 2007). Following TRA,
TAM postulates the relationship between attitude and behavioral intention. It posits that users
form intentions to use a computer system largely based on their positive affection. The users
attitude toward using system is jointed determined by PU and PEOU.


Conceptual Model

S o c ia l
In flu e n
F ea
tu r

S m a r tp h
P u rch a se
In te n tio n


C e llp h o n
D epende

Research Methodology

Research Design
In this particular study, the researcher will adopt a quantitative research design for
accomplishing the aim and objectives of the study that will be based on survey strategy

Data Collection
In this particular research, the researcher will make use of questionnaire based on the
Likert scale comprising of minimum fine options. The survey questionnaire will include
questions that will be in accordance with the aim and objectives of the study. The inclusions of
close-ended questions in the questionnaire will certainly make the data collection procedure


simpler. The main motive behind including structured questionnaire is that this form of questions
diminishes the variations in the response and can be easily coded. The research instrument
designed for this particular research will posted to Survey Monkey website. Mainly the
questionnaire will consists of two segments where the first segment intends to obtain
demographic information of the participants while the second segment will include the main
questions. The responses of the questions will be subjected to 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1-5. An answer recorded on the scale of 1 represents the strongest level of agreement whereas the
response recorded on a scale of 2 corresponds to lower level of agreement. Furthermore, a
response presented on a scale of 3 characterizes a neutral point of view, answer recorded on a
scale of 4 indicates lower level of disagreement, and finally answer at 5 implies strongest level of
disagreement. No leading questions will be included to prevent biases of the researcher.

Sampling Procedure
It is essential to define the size of the sample prior to the commencement of the primary
research. Generally, there are two techniques for determining the size of the sample namely:
random sampling and purposive sampling technique (Chaudhuri & Stenger, 2010). In this
particular research, in order to select the participants the researcher utilized random sampling
technique. The motive of employing this sampling technique is to present all the youth of the 3
selected universities to get selected. A total of 500 participants will be selected through random
sampling technique. The selected members will be sent invitations via E-mail along with the
details of the survey and a link directing to the survey website.

Data Analysis Procedures
Data analysis is the crucial phase of primary research. The responses of the participants
obtained through survey will be arranged according to the respective questions. Consequently,
with the help of Microsoft Excel software, the researcher will code the responses in the numeric
form so that they can be analyzed through SPSS.20.0 that is a famous statistical tool. This data
will be entered into SPSS 20.0 sheet and will be analyzed through different tests.



Ajax Persaud and Irfan Azhar (2012) - Innovative mobile marketing via Smartphone: Are
consumers ready? , Journal of Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 418443.
Andre H. Caron, Jennie M. Hwang and Boris H.J.M. Brummans and Letizia Caronia (2012) Business writing on the go How executives manage impressions through e-mail
communication in everyday work life, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 8-25.
Anthony Herrington (2008) - Adult educators authentic use of Smartphone to create digital
teaching resources, Proceedings ascilite Melbourne: Concise paper: Herrington, pp. 414.
Bossink, B. A. (2004). Managing drivers of innovation in construction networks.Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management
Dong-Hee Shin (2012) - Cross-analysis of usability and aesthetic in smart devices: what
influences users preferences? Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp.
Dong-Hee Shin and Hyungseung Choo (2012)- Exploring Cross-Cultural Value Structures with
Smartphones, Journal of Global Information Management, 20(2), pp. 67-93.
Egbu, C. O. (2004). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational
innovations in the construction industry: an examination of critical success
factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(5), 301-315.



Elias G. Carayannis and Stephen C. Clark and Dora E. Valvi (2012) - Smartphone Affordance:
Achieving better business through innovation, Journal Knowl Econ, DOI
Hongwei Chris Yang, Hui Liu and Liuning Zhou (2011) - Predicting young Chinese
consumers mobile viral attitudes, intents and behavior, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 59-77.
Judy C. Pearson, Anna Carmon, Cloy Tobola and Michael Fowler (2010) - Motives for
Communication: Why the Millennial Generation Uses Electronic Devices, Published by
the Communication, Speech and Theatre, Association of North Dakota, Volume 22, pp 45.
Lorraine Paterson and Boon Low (2011) - Student attitudes towards mobile library services for
smart phones, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 412-423.
Mei Min, Chow, Ling Hong, Chen, Jian Ai, Yeow, Pei Wah, Wong (2012) - Conceptual Paper:
Factors Affecting the Demand of Smartphone among Young Adult, International Journal
on Social Science Economics & A r t Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 44 - 49.
Min Li and Z.Y. Dong, Xi Chen (2011) - Factors influencing consumption experience of mobile
commerce: A study from experiential view, Journal of Internet Research Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 120 -141.
Min, M., Chow, Hong, L., Chen, Ai, J., Yeow, et al. (2012). Conceptual Paper: Factors Affecting
the Demand of Smartphon. International Journal on Social Science Economic & Art , 2
(2), 44-49.
Mitra, A. (1995). The Moderating Role of Motivation and. Price Cue Utilization in Product , 33
(3), 187-195.



Mohd Azam Osman., Abdullah Zawawi Talib., Zainal Abidin Samusi., Tan Shiang Yen., &
Abdullah Sani Alwi. (2012). A study of the trend of smartphone and its usage behavior in
Malaysia. International Journal on New Computer Architectures and Their Application
(UNCAA), 2(1), 274-285.
Morwitz V, G., & Schmittlein D, C. (1992). Using segmentation to improve sales forecasts based
on purchase intent. Journal of Marketing Research , 29 (4), 391-405.
Morwitz V, G., Steckel J, H., & Gupta, A. (2007). When do purchase intentions predict sales.
International Journal of Forecasting , 23 (3), 347-364. Moser, P. K., & J.D, T. (1995).
Contemporary Materialism: A Reader. New York: Routledge.
Norazah Mohd Suki, (2013) "Students demand for smartphones: Structural relationships of
product features, brand name, product price and social influence", Campus-Wide
Information Systems, Vol. 30 Iss: 4, pp.236 248
Norazah Mohd Suki, Norbayah Mohd Suki (2013) - Dependency on Smartphone: An Analysis of
Structural Equation Modeling, Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences) Vol. 62:1, pp. 49 55.
Norazah, M.S. (2013), "Students' demand for smartphones", Campus - Wide Information
Systems, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 236-248
Orose Leelakulthanit, Boonchai Hongcharu (2012) - Factors Influencing Smartphone
Repurchase, Journal of Business & Economics Research, Volume 10 and Number 11.
Oulasvirta, A., Wahlstrom, M., &Ericsson K. A. (2011). What does it mean to be good at using
mobile device? An investigation of three levels of experience and skill. International
Journal of Human Computer Studies, 69, 155-169.



Parul Nanda, Jeff Bos, Kem-Laurin Kramer, Catharine Hay and Jennifer Ignacz (2008) - Effect
of Smartphone aesthetic design on users emotional reaction: An empirical study, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 348-355.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster
S. M. Jacob and B. Issac (2008) - The Mobile Devices and its Mobile Learning Usage Analysis,
Vol: I International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, pp. 19-21.
Sarah Jewell (2011) - Productivity via Mobile Phones: Using Smart phones in Smart Ways,
Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 8 (1):8186, 2011.
Smartphones: The War to Be No. 3. By: Hempel, Jessi, Fortune, 00158259, 2/4/2013, Vol. 167,
Issue 2
Tara Matthews, Jeffrey Pierce and John Tang (2009) No Smart Phone Is an Island: The Impact
of Places, Situations, and Other Devices on Smart Phone Use, Computer Science,
RJ10452 (A0909-003).
Wickliffe, V. P. and Pysarchik, D. T. (2001). A look at product attributes as enhances of group
intergration among US and Korean consumers. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 29(2), 99-108.
Yangil Park and Jeng chung V. Chen (2007) - Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of
smart phone, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 9, 2007, pp. 13491365.