Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Author(s): Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis and Fred D. Davis
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 425-478
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540
Accessed: 07-04-2018 15:49 UTC
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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
MIS
Quarterly
RESEARCH ARTICLE
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
assess the likelihood of success for new techno- The current work has the following objectives:
logy introductions and helps them understand the
drivers of acceptance in order to proactively de-(1) To review the extant user acceptance
sign interventions (including training, marketing, models: The primary purpose of this review
etc.) targeted at populations of users that may be is to assess the current state of knowledge
less inclined to adopt and use new systems. The with respect to understanding individual
paper also makes several recommendations for acceptance of new information technologies.
future research including developing a deeper This review identifies eight prominent models
understanding of the dynamic influences studied and discusses their similarities and dif-
here, refining measurement of the core constructs ferences. Some authors have previously ob-
used in UTAUT, and understanding the organiza- served some of the similarities across
tional outcomes associated with new technology models.2 However, our review is the firs
use. assess similarities and differences across all
eight models, a necessary first step toward
Keywords: Theory of planned behavior, the ultimate
inno- goal of the paper: the develop-
vation characteristics, technology acceptance ment of a unified theory of individual accep-
model, social cognitive theory, unified model, tance of technology. The review is presented
integrated model in the following section.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
f --------'--------'--------------------- -----
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ven
behaviornqust"(FhbeiandAjz1975,p.302)
SubjectivNormiportan ohimtnkhesouldrshouldntperfomthe
Tabe~1.:S'[olsnhrEfId*ivuAcpt
TheoryfRasndActi()CuD Drawnfomscialpyhog,TRAisonefthms"anidvul'spoiterngavfelis(autve fundametlihorsbv.ATw
IthasbenudopricwagefbhvorsBiAjzn1975,p.26) (seShpardtl.198foviw)D (198)apliedTRAtonvucfh- logyandfuthevricxpws consitewhudamplyTRA contexfhrbavis. TechnolgyAptaMd() TAMistaloredIScnx,wgp-"hbvu dictnformaehlgypusPvUwjb thejob.UnlikTRA,facpuzMrm"(Dvs198320) excludsthaionr bexpl"thdgowicarsnbveu inteoparsmuly.TAM2xdbin-PecvEasofprtulymwdbe"(Davis198,p. cludingsbjetvormandilpectorfUs320). inteohcasfmdryg(Vk andDvis20).TAMhbewlyapdtoSujcivNrmAefTR/PB.IncludiAM2oy diverstofchnlgau. Motivanlde()
Asignfcatbodyrehplu-Twmv portedgnalmivhysxf"bcu behavior.SlstudxmnEcMfy, theoryandpifscx.Vlumvjb," (197)presntaxclviwofhudmD.2, tensofhircalb.Wm sytemdoain,Dvl.(192)p-Thrcuwf tionalheryudswcgpIMv"fm anduse(loVkthSpir19).fmgcvy"D2,
428
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venka
AdaptefromTR/PB. Adapted from TRA/TPB.
Behavior SubjectivNormAdapfTR. PercivdBhaol Contrl PercivdUsfulnAaptomTM.
AtiudeTowar
Tabe1MdlS-orsfnviAcpt(u
TheoryfPlandBvi()CstucD TPBextndRAbyaighcosrufpv behaviorlcnt.ITPB,pd istheorzdbanlmfApTR. andbehvior.Ajz(19)pstwf sevraltudihcfyTPBop inteoadbhvrwyfsg.TPB hasbenucflypidtorg indvualceptsgofmyrh- nolgies(Hart.197;MhTy andTo195b).AreltmishDcp TheoryfPlandBvi(D).Itmsp- dictngeo,DTPBsal.Inctr"hepivdsofulyrmngthe toTPBbusimlarAM,D"decp-vBhioalbr(Ajzn19,p.8)ItecxfS tude,sbjcivnorm,adpecivbhaorlcntCrolesach,"prtionsferaldxtncosrait intosheudrlygbfcwitnhoeavr"(Tyld195b,p.4) adoptincexs. CombinedTAMaPB(-) ThismodelcbntprfPBwAua percivdusflnomTAMtahybB model(Tayrn195).SubjctiveNomAdapfrTR/PB.
429
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
VAnke
interalzofhcgup'sbjv, hasmdewitor,npcflu" (Thompsnetal.19,26) Objectivfaorsnhmg makenctsyoplih.Frx,ug itemspurchadonlfw suportfePCmaybncilg condithafluesymz"(Tp etal.19,p2)
Long-term"Outcomestha veapy-ofinthefur"(Thompsnet Consequcal.19,p2). SocialFtrsndpefgmhvu FaciltngCodshreum.ISx,"pvf
TabJIle1.Modsnhri:fS'[*vuAcptL() ModelfPCUtizan()rsucD DerivdlagyfomTns'(197)thu"xwcb[ behavior,tsmdlpncgJ-fy] tohaprsedbyTRAnPB.mlj"(19,2) (19)adptenrfiTs'modelIScn-BaRgrsdhoemk(197),"tgro texsanduhmolpreictPCuzan.omplxywhic vatonsperdlivyfcuto Howevr,thnaufmodelksitparcuynde s"(Thompnetal.19,28) suitedoprcnviualeptcndsofa rangeofimtchls.Tp (19)soughtpredicabvn inteo;hwvr,kpgy'sBadTfcu"lj thecurnsawilxmfoATdU,pg detrminaso.Al,uchxbyvwp" importanesufchd(Tl.19,27) models.DrivfTan,ct"hu'
430
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venka
Thedgrtowhicneasothruingesytm "thedgrowicanvspb consitewhxgvalu,dp exprincsoftald"(MBb 19,p.5) "theangiblyofrsuv, includgtherobsvaym"(M andBebst19,p.203) "thedgrowicusfnvap 19,p.5)
Visbltynheorgaz(dpfmMB Compatibly ResultDmon-
VoluntariesfUbgvy,w"(MdB
Tabe.odl*shifInvuAcp(t InovatiDfusThery()Cc Groundeisclgy,IDT(R195)hab"twvp usedincth1960oyavrf,RlAgbp"(MB. rangifomcultsz195). inovat(TrzkydKlein1982).Wth"greowicanvtsperdbing informatsye,MndBbat(19)Eseoficul"(MrandBebst19,p.5) adptehcrisofnvetd"Thgrowicusfanvtpedo Rogersandfi setocnrusthacoldbeImgnhaceo'simgrtausinoe'calsytm" usedtoyinvalchgept.Mor(andBbst19,p.5) andBebst(196)fouprhicv validtyofhesncrait(elso AgarwlndPs197,8;Khet.) Ploufetal.201)
431
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkat
contexfmpurilzaton(se Cmpautl.OcoeThprsnal quecofthbavir.Specfly, 19);whileCompaundHgis(195a)loem-Expctinsroalexpctinsdwheivualstmnd ployedSCT,itwasuyperfomancdthusiPeronal fcmpishent(CoaudHigns195b). Higns'(195b)modeltucprhJfayg(., natureofhmdlyigwcp)sjbk. technolgyira.T modelfCpauAniv'slkgforapticubehv(.g, andHigs(195b)ueadpntAfcomuers). validtyofhemdlintcoexfintoadAnxiety
Tabe1MolsndhrifIvActC
SocialCgntveThry()suDf OneofthmspwruliabvcEx-Tdq. socialgntvehry(Bdu1986).Cmp-Sf,xwjb andHigs(195b)plextSCTohPrfmcu. outsidehgalfcrn.Cmp bextndoacpusfirm varibleutnkpgwhsofdc indvualcept,wxmhrEokgs usagetolwfircmpnhd.
432
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Vanke
20).Thefcto subjectivnormwa moresalintfw inthearlysgof exprinc(.,a thre-wayinco).
evntholyicasfrmwpd oflimtedxprncasuw withesym(.,alnfor thre-wayinco).(VksdM
usingacro-etlybDvd,Hwk etal.(198)NochngisfBrk4ud detrminaswfou.Ic,hbjv Karhnetl.(19)foudiwsmp wasmoreiptnhcgyu exprinc,whlsubjtvomad lesimportanwhcgx.vuy easofubcmnigtwhlyprvd- increasdxp,mtoygwl
Table2.RofMi[ISJtrsnExgd3 ModelExprincVutasGAg TheoryfExpincwastludVN/A ReasondthriglTA.Hwv,fcu ActionexprwasmlydTR.hug TechnolgyExpriwastudVG-N/A AceptanhoriglTM.Dvs(198)dxyu Model(anSzj196),mgthrsvp-iTA.WEc TAM2)videmprcalnshowgt,ubj MotivanlN/A Model
433
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkat
(e.g,MorisandVkth20)cuBbjvmfyw EmpircalevdnhsotgTRA,b-w exprincmodatshlug,vwb betwnsujcivormadhlf inteo,suchabjvrmgdlyfxp-wk.S becomsliprtanwhgy(.,- levsofxprinc.Thmatuwd)(, sugetionfKarhl.(19)bvyH-wc theconxfTRA.wikadBr194) (exprincdaus). Percivdusfln,atow behavior,ndpclt weralmosinthcg exprincwhlsubjtvoma lesaintwhcrgxp (Taylornd195).
Tabl2.RofdetsixgM(n
ModelExprincVutasGAg TheoryfExpincwastludVk.(20)M PlanedthorigTBD.Isbcufw(20)- BehaviorncptdTPflw-suD.Am CombinedExprcwasthN/A TAM-PBmodelinabtwsujcg
434
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkat
andfciltgoswerm salientwhxprc.Oo hand,coerbutlg-ms quencsbamirglypot adoptin(/lwexrc)usgf behavior(gtxpnc)dfu. diferncsthpoa vs.uagebhiorTltwd abilty,resudmonv- bilty.Incoras,fugev advntgeimwrsfc.
withncreasglvofxp. thafordpin,esgc werlativdng,sofu-
Tabl2.RofSdetsinExM(
ModelExprincVutasGAg ModelfPCThmpsnta.(194)uc-N/A Utilzaonpexy,fcwrdus InovatiKrhel.(19)cduVswN/A Difusonbetw-jcmpardyh, Theoryimpactfnvsbuw SocialN/A Cognitve Theory
435
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Tal
Cros-
sureptdn.
nolgytper- formatsk
sonfitehclgyaw32%d6, anduseofwrtpiTAM47%51, procestimvly. sonfitechlgya70%dTPBw62 useaprd-chti shetandpo calutorhse- sonfiteamlrwhvgc52%,TPB7d useacomptingrwvyd-DTPB60% resoucnti.,mlpa- sonfbehavirlt10m3%dIDTw45 inteousf anduseith contexfamr- ketrialofn elctronipay- mentsy usingmartcd.
Tale3.RioPd ModelThris/CntxfSuyNwca ComparisnMdel(Ic.ThgyNubfPtL StudiesComparTchnlgy)PfMAF Davisetl.TRA,MWhn-ubjc107dPrpwo;4kC (198)modelcpari-wntsuxbyTRA MathiesonTA,PBw-ubjc26dSmflOCrv (19)modelcpari-tywhsnxbTAM TaylorndAM,With-subjec786FmCv Tod(195b)PB/Dmelcpari-wy,stunxAM Ploufeta.TAM,IDWihn-sbjc176SrvyOC (201)modelcpari-hntsxbyTAMw
436
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
* Participants: While there have been some mandatory settings that are possibly of mor
tests of each model in organizational settings, interest to practicing managers. This re
the participants in three of the four model search examines both voluntary and man
comparison studies have been students- datory implementation contexts.
only Plouffe et al. (2001) conducted their
research in a nonacademic setting. This
research is conducted using data collected
from employees in organizations.
Empirical Comparison of the
Timing of measurement: In general, most of
Eight Models
the tests of the eight models were conducted
well after the participants' acceptance or Settings and Participants
rejection decision rather than during the
active adoption decision-making process. Longitudinal field studies were conducted at fou
Because behavior has become routinized, organizations among individuals being introduce
individual reactions reported in those studies to a new technology in the workplace. To help
are retrospective (see Fiske and Taylor 1991; ensure our results would be robust across
Venkatesh et al. 2000). With the exception of contexts, we sampled for heterogeneity acr
Davis et al. (1989), the model comparisons technologies, organizations, industries, bus
examined technologies that were already functions, and nature of use (voluntary
familiar to the individuals at the time of mea- mandatory). In addition, we captured percep
surement. In this paper, we examine techno- as the users' experience with the technol
logies from the time of their initial introduction increased. At each firm, we were able to tim
to stages of greater experience. data collection in conjunction with a trai
program associated with the new techno
* Nature of measurement: Even studies that introduction. This approach is consistent w
have examined experience have typically prior training and individual acceptance res
employed cross-sectional and/or between- where individual reactions to a new techno
subjects comparisons (e.g., Davis et al. 1989; were studied (e.g., Davis et al. 1989; Olfman
Karahanna et al. 1999; Szajna 1996; Taylor Mandviwalla 1994; Venkatesh and Davis 2
and Todd 1995a; Thompson et al. 1994). A pretested questionnaire containing items
This limitation applies to model comparison suring constructs from all eight models
studies also. Our work tracks participants administered at three different points in ti
through various stages of experience with a post-training (T1), one month after implement
new technology and compares all models on
(T2), and three months after implementation
all participants. Actual usage behavior was measured over th
month post-training period. Table 4 summa
* Voluntary vs. mandatory contexts: Most of key characteristics of the organizational sett
the model tests and all four model com- Figure 2 presents the longitudinal data colle
parisons were conducted in voluntary usage
schedule.
contexts.3 Therefore, one must use caution
when generalizing those results to the
Measurement
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
x 0 X 0 X 0 X 0
Training User System User System User System Usage
Reactions Use Reactions/ Use Reactions/ Use Measurement
Usage Usage
Measurement Measurement
1 week 1 month 3 months 6 months
Figure 2L g d Sche
Functional Sample
Study Industry Area Size System Description
Voluntary Use
Online meeting manager that could be
Product used to conduct Web-enabled video or
la Entertainment 54
Development audio conferences in lieu of face-to-face
or traditional phone conferences
Database application that could be used
Telecomm to access industry standards for particular
Services products in lieu of other resources (e.g.,
technical manuals, Web sites)
Mandatory Use
Business Portfolio analyzer that analysts were
2a Banking Account 58 required to use in evaluating existing and
Management potential accounts
Public Proprietary accounting systems on a PC
2b Administration Accounting 38 platform that accountants were required
to use for organizational bookkeeping
and Venkatesh and Davis (2000); MM scales were perceived voluntariness was measured as a
adapted from Davis et al. (1992); TPB/DTPB manipulation check per the scale of Moore and
scales were adapted from Taylor and Todd Benbasat (1991), where 1 was nonvoluntary and
(1995a, 1995b); MPCU scales were adapted from 7 was completely voluntary. The tense of the
Thompson et al. (1991); IDT scales were adapted verbs in the various scales reflected the timing of
from Moore and Benbasat (1991); and SCT scales measurement: future tense was employed at T1,
were adapted from Compeau and Higgins (1995a, present tense was employed at T2 and T3 (see
1995b) and Compeau et al. (1999). Behavioral Karahanna et al. 1999). The scales used to mea-
intention to use the system was measured using sure the key constructs are discussed in a later
a three-item scale adapted from Davis et al. section where we perform a detailed comparison
(1989) and extensively used in much of the (Tables 9 through 13). A focus group of five
previous individual acceptance research. Seven- business professionals evaluated the question-
point scales were used for all of the aforemen- naire, following which minor wording changes
tioned constructs' measurement, with 1 being the were made. Actual usage behavior was mea-
negative end of the scale and 7 being the positive sured as duration of use via system logs. Due to
end of the scale. In addition to these measures, the sensitivity of usage measures to network
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
availability, in all organizations studied, the system findings emerged from these analyses. First, all
automatically logged off inactive users after a eight models explained individual acceptance,
period of 5 to 15 minutes, eliminating most idle with variance in intention explained ranging from
time from the usage logs. 17 percent to 42 percent. Also, a key difference
across studies stemmed from the voluntary vs.
mandatory settings-in mandatory settings (study
Results 2), constructs related to social influence were
significant whereas in the voluntary settings (study
1), they were not significant. Finally, the deter-
The perceptions of voluntariness were very high in
minants of intention varied over time, with some
studies la and lb (la: M = 6.50, SD = 0.22; lb:
determinants going from significant to nonsigni-
M = 6.51, SD = 0.20) and very low in studies 2a
ficant with increasing experience.
and 2b (la: M = 1.50, SD = 0.19; 1b: M = 1.49,
SD = 0.18). Given this bi-modal distribution in the
Following the test of the baseline/original specifi-
data (voluntary vs. mandatory), we created two
cations of the eight models (Tables 5 and 6), we
data sets: (1) studies la and Ib, and (2) studies
2a and 2b. This is consistent with Venkatesh and examined the moderating influences suggested
(either explicitly or implicitly) in the literature-i.e.,
Davis (2000).
experience, voluntariness, gender, and age
(Table 2). In order to test these moderating influ-
Partial least squares (PLS Graph, Version
ences, stay true to the model extensions
2.91.03.04) was used to examine the reliability
(Table 2), and conduct a complete test of the
and validity of the measures. Specifically, 48
existing models and their extensions, the data
separate validity tests (two studies, eight models,
were pooled across studies and time periods.
three time periods each) were run to examine
Voluntariness was a dummy variable used to
convergent and discriminant validity. In testing
separate the situational contexts (study 1 vs.
the various models, only the direct effects on
study 2); this approach is consistent with previous
intention were modeled as the goal was to
research (Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Gender
examine the prediction of intention rather than
was coded as a 0/1 dummy variable consistent
interrelationships among determinants of inten-
with previous research (Venkatesh and Morris
tion; further, the explained variance (R2) is not
2000) and age was coded as a continuous vari-
affected by indirect paths. The loading pattern
able, consistent with prior research (Morris and
was found to be acceptable with most loadings
Venkatesh 2000). Experience was operationa-
being .70 or higher. All internal consistency
lized via a dummy variable that took ordinal values
reliabilities were greater than .70. The patterns of
of 0, 1, or 2 to capture increasing levels of user
results found in the current work are highly con-
experience with the system (T1, T2, and T3).
sistent with the results of previous research.
Using an ordinal dummy variable, rather than
categorical variables, is consistent with recent
PLS was used to test all eight models at the three
research (e.g., Venkatesh and Davis 2000).
points of measurement in each of the two data
Pooling the data across the three points of mea-
sets. In all cases, we employed a bootstrapping
surement resulted in a sample of 645 (215 x 3).
method (500 times) that used randomly selected
The results of the pooled analysis are shown in
subsamples to test the PLS model.4 Tables 5 and
Table 7.
6 present the model validation results at each of
the points of measurement. The tables report the
Because pooling across time periods allows the
variance explained and the beta coefficients. Key
explicit modeling of the moderating role of exper-
ience, there is an increase in the variance ex-
plained in the case of TAM2 (Table 7) compared
4The interested reader is referred to a more detailed
to a main effects-only model reported earlier
exposition of bootstrapping and how it compares to other
techniques of resampling such as jackknifing (see Chin (Tables 5 and 6). One of the limitations of pooling
1998; Efron and Gong 1983). is that there are repeated measures from the
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
TPB/ Attitude toward using tech. .37 .52*** .25 .50*** .21 .44***
DTPB Subjective norm .05 .04 .05
Perceived behavioral control .24*** .03 .02
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
TPB/ Attitude toward using tech. .34 .22* .28 .36*** .18 .43***
DTPB Subjective norm .25*** .26** .05
Perceived behavioral control .19* .03 .08
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
SN x EXP .02
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
SN x GDR .10
SN x EXP -.03
SN x AGE .11
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
A x EXP .08
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Notes: 1. BI, PBC measured at T1 were used to predict usage between time periods 1 a
Use12); BI, PBC measured at T2 were used to predict usage between time pe
(Use23); BI, PBC measured at T3 were used to predict usage between time pe
(Use3).
2. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
time period: intention from T1 was used to predict TRA and TPB/DTPB, perceived usefulness in
usage behavior measured between T1 and T2 and TAM/TAM2 and C-TAM-TPB, extrinsic motivation
so on (see Table 8). Since intention was used to in MM, job-fit in MPCU, relative advantage in IDT,
predict actual behavior, concerns associated with and outcome expectations in SCT. Second,
the employment of subjective measures of usage several other constructs were initially significant,
do not apply here (see Straub et al. 1995). In but then became nonsignificant over time, in-
addition to intention being a predictor of use, per- cluding perceived behavioral control in TPB/DTPB
ceived behavioral control became a significant and C-TAM-TPB, perceived ease of use in TAM/
direct determinant of use over and above intention TAM2, complexity in MPCU, ease of use in IDT,
with increasing experience (at T3) indicating that and self-efficacy and anxiety in SCT. Finally, the
continued use could be directly hindered or voluntary vs. mandatory context did have an
fostered by resources and opportunities. A nearly influence on the significance of constructs related
identical pattern of results was found when the to social influence: subjective norm (TPB/DTPB,
data were analyzed using facilitating conditions C-TAM-TPB and TAM2), social factors (MPCU),
(from MPCU) in place of perceived behavioral and image (IDT) were only significant in
control (the specific results are not shown here). mandatory implementations.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Performance
Expectancy
Effort
Expectancy
Facilitating
Conditions
Voluntariness
Gender Age Experience ou s of Use
- -ue .Rseac oe
performance. of
significant role as direct determinants The user
five constructs from the dif-
ferent
acceptance and usage behavior: models that pertain to performance
performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, expectancy are perceived usefulness (TAM/TAM2
social influence,
and facilitating conditions. As will be explained
and C-TAM-TPB), extrinsic motivation (MM), job-fit
(MPCU), relative advantage
below, attitude toward using technology, self- (IDT), and outcome
expectations
efficacy, and anxiety are theorized not to be (SCT). Even as these constructs
direct
evolved in the literature, some authors acknowl-
determinants of intention. The labels used for the
constructs describe the essence of the construct edged their similarities: usefulness and extrinsic
motivation (Davis et al. 1989, 1992), usefulness
and are meant to be independent of any particular
and job-fit (Thompson et al. 1991 ), usefulness and
theoretical perspective. In the remainder of this
section, we define each of the determinants, relative advantage (Davis et al. 1989; Moore and
specify the role of key moderators (gender, age, Benbasat 1991; Plouffe et al. 2001), usefulness
voluntariness, and experience), and provide the and outcome expectations (Compeau and Higgins
theoretical justification for the hypotheses. 1995b; Davis et al. 1989), and job-fit and outcome
Figure 3 presents the research model. expectations (Compeau and Higgins 1995b).
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
a single factor.
1998; Compeau and Higgins 1995b; Davis et al. formance expectancies, which focus on task
1992; Taylor and Todd 1995a; Thompson et al. accomplishment, are likely to be especially salient
1991; Venkatesh and Davis 2000). However, from to men. Gender schema theory suggests that
a theoretical point of view, there is reason to such differences stem from gender roles and
expect that the relationship between performance socialization processes reinforced from birth
expectancy and intention will be moderated by rather than biological gender per se (Bem 1981;
genderand age. Research on gender differencesBem and Allen 1974; Kirchmeyer 1997; Lubinski
et al. 1983; Lynott and McCandless 2000; Moto-
indicates that men tend to be highly task-oriented
widlo 1982). Recent empirical studies outside the
(Minton and Schneider 1980) and, therefore, per-
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
IT context (e.g., Kirchmeyer 2002; Twenge 1997) The effort expectancy construct within each model
have shown that gender roles have a strong (Table 10) is significant in both voluntary and
psychological basis and are relatively enduring, mandatory usage contexts; however, each one is
yet open to change over time (see also Ashmore significant only during the first time period (post-
1990; Eichinger et al. 1991; Feldman and Aschen- training, T1), becoming nonsignificant over
brenner 1983; Helson and Moane 1987). periods of extended and sustained usage (see
Tables 5, 6, and 7), consistent with previous
Similar to gender, age is theorized to play a research (e.g., Agarwal and Prasad 1997, 1998;
moderating role. Research on job-related atti- Davis et al. 1989; Thompson et al. 1991, 1994).
tudes (e.g., Hall and Mansfield 1975; Porter 1963) Effort-oriented constructs are expected to be be
suggests that younger workers may place more more salient in the early stages of a new behavior,
importance on extrinsic rewards. Gender and agewhen process issues represent hurdles to be
differences have been shown to exist in techno-overcome, and later become overshadowed by
instrumentality concerns (Davis et al. 1989;
logy adoption contexts also (Morris and Venkatesh
2000; Venkatesh and Morris 2000). In looking atSzajna 1996; Venkatesh 1999).
gender and age effects, it is interesting to note
that Levy (1988) suggests that studies of gender
Venkatesh and Morris (2000), drawing upon other
differences can be misleading without reference to
research (e.g., Bem and Allen 1974; Bozionelos
age. For example, given traditional societal gen-
1996), suggest that effort expectancy is more
der roles, the importance of job-related factors
salient for women than for men. As noted earlier,
may change significantly (e.g., become sup-the gender differences predicted here could be
planted by family-oriented responsibilities) for
driven by cognitions related to gender roles (e.g.,
working women between the time that they enter
Lynott and McCandless 2000; Motowidlo 1982;
the labor force and the time they reach child-Wong et al. 1985). Increased age has been
rearing years (e.g., Barnett and Marshall 1991).
shown to be associated with difficulty in pro-
Thus, we expect that the influence of performance
cessing complex stimuli and allocating attention to
expectancy will be moderated by both gender andinformation on the job (Plude and Hoyer 1985),
age. both of which may be necessary when using
software systems. Prior research supports the
Hl: The influence of performance ex- notion that constructs related to effort expectancy
pectancy on behavioral intention will will be stronger determinants of individuals' inten-
be moderated by gender and age, tion for women (Venkatesh and Morris 2000;
such that the effect will be stronger Venkatesh et al. 2000) and for older workers
for men and particularly for younger (Morris and Venkatesh 2000). Drawing from the
men.
arguments made in the context of performance
expectancy, we expect gender, age, and exper-
ience to work in concert (see Levy 1988). Thus,
Effort Expectancy
we propose that effort expectancy will be most
salient for women, particularly those who are older
Effort expectancy is defined as the degree of ease
and with relatively little experience with the
associated with the use of the system. Three con-
system.
structs from the existing models capture the
concept of effort expectancy: perceived ease of
use (TAM/TAM2), complexity (MPCU), and H2:ease
The influence of effort expectancy
on behavioral intention will be
of use (IDT). As can be seen in Table 10, there is
moderated by gender, age, and
substantial similarity among the construct defini-
tions and measurement scales. The similarities experience, such that the effect will
among these constructs have been noted in prior be stronger for women, particularly
research (Davis et al. 1989; Moore and Benbasat younger women, and particularly at
1991; Plouffe et al. 2001; Thompson et al. 1991). early stages of experience.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Ease of Use The degree to which 1. My interaction with the system is clear
(Moore and Benbasat using an innovation is and understandable.
1991) perceived as being 2. I believe that it is easy to get the system
difficult to use. to do what I want it to do.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
use is mandated. Venkatesh and Davis (2000) The role of social influence in technology
suggested that such effects could be attributed acceptance decisions is complex and subject to
to compliance in mandatory contexts that a wide range of contingent influences. Social
causes social influences to have a direct effect influence has an impact on individual behavior
on intention; in contrast, social influence in through three mechanisms: compliance, inter-
voluntary contexts operates by influencing per- nalization, and identification (see Venkatesh and
ceptions about the technology-the mech- Davis 2000; Warshaw 1980). While the latter
anisms at play here are internalization and two relate to altering an individual's belief struc-
identification. In mandatory settings, social ture and/or causing an individual to respond to
influence appears to be important only in the potential social status gains, the compliance
early stages of individual experience with the mechanism causes an individual to simply alter
technology, with its role eroding over time and his or her intention in response to the social
eventually becoming nonsignificant with sus- pressure-i.e., the individual intends to comply
tained usage (T3), a pattern consistent with the with the social influence. Prior research sug-
observations of Venkatesh and Davis (2000). gests that individuals are more likely to comply
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Perceived Behavioral Reflects perceptions of 1. I have control over using the system.
Control internal and external 2. I have the resources necessary to use
(Ajzen 1991; Taylor and constraints on behavior the system.
Todd 1995a, 1995b) and encompasses self- 3. I have the knowledge necessary to
efficacy, resource facili- use the system.
tating conditions, and 4. Given the resources, opportunities
technology facilitating and knowledge it takes to use the
conditions. system, it would be easy for me to use
the system.
5. The system is not compatible with
other systems I use.
Facilitating Conditions Objective factors in the 1. Guidance was available to me in the
(Thompson et al. 1991) environment that selection of the system.
observers agree make 2. Specialized instruction concerning the
an act easy to do, system was available to me.
including the provision 3. A specific person (or group) is
of computer support. available for assistance with system
difficulties.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
rated by age and experience, motivation8 (MM), affect toward use (MPCU), and
such that the effect will be affect (SCT). Table 13 presents the definitions
stronger for older workers, par- and associated scale items for each construct.
ticularly with increasing exper- Each construct has a component associated with
ience. generalized feeling/affect associated with a given
behavior (in this case, using technology). In
examining these four constructs, it is evident that
Constructs Theorized Not to Be they all tap into an individual's liking, enjoyment,
Direct Determinants of Intention joy, and pleasure associated with technology use.
Although self-efficacy and anxiety appeared to be Empirically, the attitude constructs present an
interesting case (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). In some
significant direct determinants of intention in SCT
(see Tables 5 and 6), UTAUT does not includecases (e.g., TRA, TPB/DTPB, and MM), the
them as direct determinants. Previous research attitude construct is significant across all three
time periods and is also the strongest predictor of
(Venkatesh 2000) has shown self-efficacy and
behavioral intention. However, in other cases (C-
anxiety to be conceptually and empirically distinct
from effort expectancy (perceived ease of use). TAM-TPB, MPCU, and SCT), the construct was
Self-efficacy and anxiety have been modeled not as significant. Upon closer examination, the
indirect determinants of intention fully mediated attitudinal
by constructs are significant only when
perceived ease of use (Venkatesh 2000). Consis- specific cognitions-in this case, constructs
tent with this, we found that self-efficacy and related to performance and effort expectancies-
anxiety appear to be significant determinants are of not included in the model. There is empirical
evidence to suggest that affective reactions (e.g.,
intention in SCT-i.e., without controlling for the
effect of effort expectancy. We therefore expect intrinsic motivation) may operate through effort
expectancy (see Venkatesh 2000). Therefore, we
self-efficacy and anxiety to behave similarly, that
is, to be distinct from effort expectancy and consider
to any observed relationship between
have no direct effect on intention above and attitude and intention to be spurious and resulting
beyond effort expectancy. from the omission of the other key predictors
(specifically, performance and effort expec-
H5a: Computer self-efficacy will nottancies). This spurious relationship likely stems
have a significant influence on from the effect of performance and effort expec-
behavioral intention.6 tancies on attitude (see Davis et al. 1989). The
non-significance of attitude in the presence of
H5b: Compute anxiety will not have such other constructs has been reported in pre-
a significant influence on beha- vious model tests (e.g., Taylor and Todd 1995a;
vioral intention.7 Thompson et al. 1991), despite the fact that this
finding is counter to what is theorized in TRA and
Attitude toward using technology is defined as an TPB/DTPB. Given that we expect strong relation-
individual's overall affective reaction to using a ships in UTAUT between performance expectancy
system. Four constructs from the existing models and intention, and between effort expectancy and
align closely with this definition: attitude toward intention, we believe that, consistent with the logic
behavior (TRA, TPB/DTPB, C-TAM-TPB), intrinsic developed here, attitude toward using technology
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Using the post-training data (T1) pooled across An examination of these highest loading items
studies (N = 215), a measurement model of the suggested that they adequately represented the
seven direct determinants of intention (using all conceptual underpinnings of the constructs-this
items that related to each of the constructs) was preliminary content validity notwithstanding, we
will return to this issue later in our discussion of
estimated. All constructs, with the exception of
the limitations of this work. Selection based on
use, were modeled using reflective indicators. All
internal consistency reliabilities (ICRs) were item loadings or corrected item-total correlations
greater than .70. The square roots of the shared are often recommended in the psychometric
variance between the constructs and their mea- literature (e.g., Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).
sures were higher than the correlations across This approach favors building a homogenous
constructs, supporting convergent and discri- instrument with high internal consistency, but
minant validity-see Table 14(a). The reverse- could sacrifice content validity by narrowing
domain coverage." The items selected for further
coded affect items of Compeau and Higgins
analysis are indicated via an asterisk in Table 15,
(1995b) had loadings lower than .60 and were
and the actual items are shown in Table 16.
dropped and the model was reestimated. With
the exception of eight loadings, all others were
Tables 17(a) and 17(b) show the detailed model
greater than .70, the level that is generally con-
test results at each time period for intention and
sidered acceptable (Fornell and Larcker 1981; see
usage, respectively, including all lower-level
also Compeau and Higgins 1995a, 1995b; Com-
interaction terms. Tables 17(a) and 17(b) also
peau et al. 1999)-see Table 15. Inter-item corre-
show the model with direct effects only so the
lation matrices (details not shown here due to
reader can compare that to a model that includes
space constraints) confirmed that intra-construct
the moderating influences. The variance ex-
item correlations were very high while inter-con-
plained at various points in time by a direct
struct item correlations were low. Results of
effects-only model and the full model including
similar analyses from subsequent time periods (T2
interaction terms are shown in Tables 17(a) and
and T3) also indicated an identical pattern and are
17(b) for intention and usage behavior, respec-
shown in Tables 14(b) and 14(c). tively.12 We pooled the data across the different
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
ANX .83 3.11 1.14 -.10 -.38*** -.40*** -.20** -.18** -.36*** .84
BI .92 4.07 1.44 .38*** .34*** .25*** .35*** .19** .16* -.23** .84
(b) T2 Results (N = 215)
ICR Mean S Dev PE EE ATUT SI FC SE ANX BI
PE .91 4.71 1.11 .92
EE .90 5.72 0.77 .30*** .90
ATUT .77 5.01 1.42 .25** .20** .86
SI .94 3.88 1.08 .27*** -.19* .21** .88
FC .83 3.79 1.17 .19* .31*** .18* .20** .86
SE .89 5.07 1.14 .24** .35*** .19** .21** .33*** .75
ANX .79 3.07 1.45 -.07 -.32*** -.35*** -.21** -.17* -.35*** .82
BI .90 4.19 0.98 .41*** .27*** .23** .21** .16* .16* -.17* .87
(c) T3 Results (N = 215)
ICR Mean S Dev PE EE ATUT SI FC SE ANX BI
PE .91 4.88 1.17 .94
EE .94 5.88 0.62 .34*** .91
ATUT .81 5.17 1.08 .21** .24** .79
SI .92 3.86 1.60 .27*** -.15 .20** .93
FC .85 3.50 1.12 .19* .28*** .18* .22** .84
SE .90 5.19 1.07 .14* .30*** .22** .20** .33*** .77
ANX .82 2.99 1.03 -.11 -.30*** -.30*** -.20** -.24** -.32*** .82
BI .90 4.24 1.07 .44*** .24** .20** .16* .16* .16* -.14 .89
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
OE1
OE2 .72
.71 .80
.68 .75
.77 -
. wMr
C2 .71 .74
C2 .71 .74.74
.74
Cl .72 .72 .70
4)EU6
O "zX
E1 4 .*ANX2 .71
.84 .80 8 4.84
_<8*ANX3 .70
.72 .69 .72
.73
SW EU2 .83 .88 .85 *ANX4 .74 .72 .77
ti EU3 .89 .84 .80
o *EU4 .91 .91 .92 *BI1 .88 .84 .88
w C01 .83 .82 .81 o *B02 .82 .86 .88
CO02 .83 .78 .80 7 *BI3 .84 88 87
CO03 .81 .84 .80
CO04 .75 .73 .78
*Al .80 .83 .85
A2 .67 .64 .65
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Tale16 te s se n stmaig U AU
Performance expectancy
U6: I would find the system useful in my job.
RA1: Using the system enables me to accomplish tasks mo
RA5: Using the system increases my productivity.
OE7: If I use the system, I will increase my chances of gettin
Effort expectancy
EOU3: My interaction with the system would be clear and un
EOU5: It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the
EOU6: I would find the system easy to use.
EU4: Learning to operate the system is easy for me.
Social influence
SN1: People who influence my behavior think that I should use the system.
SN2: People who are important to me think that I should use the system.
SF2: The senior management of this business has been helpful in the use of the system
SF4: In general, the organization has supported the use of the, system.
Facilitating conditions
PBC2: I have the resources necessary to use the system.
PBC3: I have the knowledge necessary to use the system.
PBC5: The system is not compatible with other systems I use.
FC3: A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with system difficulties.
Self-efficacy
I could complete a job or task using the system...
SE1: If there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go.
SE4: If I could call someone for help if I got stuck.
SE6: If I had a lot of time to complete the job for which the software was provided.
SE7: If I had just the built-in help facility for assistance.
Anxiety
ANX1: I feel apprehensive about using the system.
ANX2: It scares me to think that I could lose a lot of information using the system by hitting
the wrong key.
ANX3: I hesitate to use the system for fear of making mistakes I cannot correct.
ANX4: The system is somewhat intimidating to me.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
a determinant of intention, thus supporting H4a.13 items used in the preliminary test of UTAUT (listed
As expected self-efficacy, anxiety, and attitude in Table 16) were used to estimate the mea-
did not have any direct effect on intention, thus surement and structural models in the new data.
supporting H5a, H5b, and H5c. Three of the four This helped ensure the test of the same model in
both the preliminary test and this validation, thus
limiting any variation due to the changing of items.
UTAUT was then tested separately for each time
13Since these two hypotheses were about nonsignificant
relationships, the supportive results should be inter-
preted with caution, bearing in mind the power analysis
14Since these two hypotheses were about nonsignificant
reported in the text. In this case, the concern about the
lack of a relationship is somewhat alleviated as some relationships, the supportive results should be inter-
previous research in this area has found attitude and preted with caution after consideration of the power
facilitating conditions to not be predictors of intentionanalyses
in reported in the text. The results are presented
the presence of performance expectancy and effort here for model completeness and to allow the reader to
expectancy constructs (see Taylor and Todd 1995b; link the current research with existing theoretical
Venkatesh 2000). perspectives in this domain.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Performance expectancy (PE) .46*** .17* .57*** .15* .59*** .16* .53*** .18*
Effort expectancy (EE) .20* -.12 .08 .02 .09 .11 .10 .04
Social influence (SI) .13 .10 .10 .07 .07 .04 .11 .01
Facilitating conditions (FC) .03 .04 .02 .01 .01 .01 .09 .04
Gender (GDR) .04 .02 .04 .01 .02 .01 .03 .01
Age (AGE) .08 .02 .09 .08 .01 -.08 .06 .00
Voluntariness (VOL) .01 .04 .03 .02 .04 -.04 .02 .00
Experience (EXP) .04 .00
EE xAGE .08
EEyx
104 .02 a -~
EXstP .02
.04
GDR x AGE (included earlier) Earlier Earlier Earlier Earlier
GDR x EXP .02
AGE x EXP .01
EE x GDR x AGE 22** 20*** .18*.01
EE x GDR x EXP -.10
EE x AGE x EXP-.02
GDR x AGE x EXP -.06
EE x GDR x AGE x EXP - .27***
SI
SI
x x
GDR x VOLx
GDR
-.01
EXP
.03 .02.01
.01
SI x AGE x VOL -.17* .02 .06 .06
SI x AGE x EXP %M.01
SI x VOL x EXP .00
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
T 1 l - - yTso A (Cntnud
T1 T2 T3 Pooled
Behavioral intention (BI) .61*** 57*** .60*** .58*** .58*** .59*** .59*** .52***
Facilitating conditions (FC) .05 .07 .06 .07 .18* .07 .10 .11
Age (AGE) .02 .02 .01 .02 .04 .13 .04 .08
Experience (EXP) .06
FC x AGE .22* 24* .27** .02
FC x EXP .00
AGE x EXP .01
FC x AGE x EXP .23**
Functional Sample
Study Industry Area Size System Description
Voluntary Use
Mandatory Use
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
ANX .82 2.87 0.89 -.17* -.41** -.41*** -.22** -.25** -.35*** .80
BI .89 4.02 1.19 .43*** .31*** .23*** .31*** .22* .24** -.21** .85
ANX .83 3.00 0.82 -.17* -.42*** -.32*** -.24** -.26* -.36*** .81
BI .88 4.18 0.99 .40*** .24** .21** .24** .20* .21** -.22** .88
(c) T3 Results (N = 133)
ICR Mean S Dev PE EE ATUT SI FC SE ANX BI
ANX .85 3.02 0.87 -.15* -.31*** -.28*** -.22* -.25* -.38*** .77
BI .90 4.07 1.02 .41*** .20** .21* .19* .20* .20* -.21** .84
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Toward AF1 .82 .83 .77 Anxiety ANX2 .84 .84 .82
Using
TechnologyAF2
Technology .80 .80 .76 (ANX) ANX3 .83 .80 .83
(ATUT) Affectl .87 .84 .76 ANX4 .84 .77 .83
SN1 .94 .90 .90 BI1 .92 .90 .91
Social SN2 .90 .93 .88 Intention B12 .90 .90 .91
Influence
(S) SF2 .89 .92 .94 (BI) B13 .90 .92 .92
SF4 .92 .81 .79
-abl- 2- on.oh g
(a) Dependent Variable: Intention
T1 T2 T3 Pooled
(N = 133) (N = 133) (N = 133) (N = 399)
Performance expectancy (PE) .45*** .15 .59*** .16* .59*** .15* .53*** .14
Effort expectancy (EE) .22** .02 .06 .06 .04 .01 .10 .02
Social influence (SI) .02 .04 .04 .04 .02 .01 .02 .02
Facilitating conditions (FC) .07 .01 .00 .08 .01 .00 .07 .01
Gender (GDR) .02 .06 .01 .04 .07 .02 .03 .03
Age (AGE) .01 .00 .07 .02 .02 .01 .07 .01
Voluntariness (VOL) .00 .00 .01 .06 .02 .04 .00 .01
Experience (EXP) .08 .00
PE x GDR .14 17* 18 .01
PE x AGE .06 .01 .02 -.04
GDR x AGE .02 .04 .04 -.02
EE x GDR -.06 02 .04 .09
EE x AGE -.02 .01 .02 -.04
EE x EXP .01
MIS Q
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Behavioral intention (BI) .60*** .56*** .59*** .50*** .59*** .56*** .59*** .51**
Facilitating conditions (FC) .04 .11 .01 .01 .02 .06 .14* .08
Age (AGE) .06 .02 .06 -.03 -.03 -.01 .06 .02
Experience (EXP) .10
FC x AGE .17" .21** .24** .01
FC x EXP .06
AGExEXP -.07
FC x AGE x EXP .22**
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
period (N = 133 at each time period). The mea- over any of the original eight models and their
surement models are shown in Tables 19 and 20. extensions. Further, UTAUT was successful in
The pattern of results in this validation (Tables integrating key elements from among the initial set
21(a) and 21(b)) mirrors what was found in the of 32 main effects and four moderators as
preliminary test (Table 17). The last column of determinants of intention and behavior collectivel
Tables 21(a) and 21(b) reports observations from posited by eight alternate models into a model tha
the pooled analysis as before. Appendix B reports incorporated four main effects and four
the statistical tests we conducted prior to pooling moderators.
the data for the cross-validation test, consistent
with the approach taken in the preliminary test. Thus, UTAUT is a definitive model that synthe-
Insofar as the no-relationship hypotheses were sizes what is known and provides a foundation to
concerned, the power analysis revealed a high guide future research in this area. By encom-
likelihood (over 95 percent) of detecting medium passing the combined explanatory power of the
effects. The variance explained was quite com- individual models and key moderating influences,
parable to that found in the preliminary test of UTAUT advances cumulative theory while re-
UTAUT. taining a parsimonious structure. Figure 3 pre-
sents the model proposed and supported.
Table 22 presents a summary of the findings. It
should be noted that performance expectancy
Discussion appears to be a determinant of intention in most
situations: the strength of the relationship varies
The present research set out to integrate
withthe
gender and age such that it is more signi-
fragmented theory and research on individual
ficant for men and younger workers. The effect of
acceptance of information technology intoeffort
a uni-expectancy on intention is also moderated
fied theoretical model that captures the essential
by gender and age such that it is more significant
for women and older workers, and those effects
elements of eight previously established models.
First, we identified and discussed thedecrease
eight with experience. The effect of social
specific models of the determinants of intention
influence on intention is contingent on all four
and usage of information technology. Second,
moderators included here such that we found it to
these models were empirically compared using be nonsignificant when the data were analyzed
within-subjects, longitudinal data from four withoutorgani- the inclusion of moderators. Finally, the
zations. Third, conceptual and empirical simi- effect of facilitating conditions on usage was only
larities across the eight models were used to significant when examined in conjunction with the
formulate the Unified Theory of Acceptance and moderating effects of age and experience-i.e.,
Use of Technology (UTAUT). Fourth, the UTAUT they only matter for older workers in later stages
was empirically tested using the original data from of experience.
the four organizations and then cross-validated
using new data from an additional two organi- Prior to discussing the implications of this work, it
zations. These tests provided strong empirical is necessary to recognize some of its limitations.
support for UTAUT, which posits three direct One limitation concerns the scales used to mea-
determinants of intention to use (performance sure the core constructs. For practical analytical
expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influ- reasons, we operationalized each of the core
ence) and two direct determinants of usage constructs in UTAUT by using the highest-loading
behavior (intention and facilitating conditions). items from each of the respective scales. This
Significant moderating influences of experience, approach is consistent with recommendations in
voluntariness, gender, and age were confirmed as the psychometric literature (e.g., Nunnally and
integral features of UTAUT. UTAUT was able to Bernstein 1994). Such pruning of the instrument
account for 70 percent of the variance (adjusted was the only way to have the degrees of freedom
R2) in usage intention-a substantial improvement necessary to model the various interaction terms
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
-abl22.Summayo
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
emphasize that most of the key relationships in the importance of gender roles and the possibility
the model are moderated. For example, age has that "psychological gender" is the root cause for
received very little attention in the technology the effects observed. Empirical evidence has
acceptance research literature, yet our results demonstrated that gender roles can have a pro-
indicate that it moderates all of the key relation- found impact on individual attitudes and behaviors
ships in the model. Gender, which has received both within and outside the workplace (e.g., Baril
some recent attention, is also a key moderating et al. 1989; Feldman and Aschenbrenner 1983;
influence; however, consistent with findings in the Jagacinski 1987; Keys 1985; Roberts 1997; Sachs
sociology and social psychology literature (e.g., et al. 1992; Wong et al. 1985). Specifically, gen-
Levy 1988), it appears to work in concert with age, der effects observed here could be a manifesta-
a heretofore unexamined interaction. For exam- tion of effects caused by masculinity, femininity,
ple, prior research has suggested that effort and androgyny rather than just "biological sex"
expectancy is more salient for women (e.g.,(e.g., Lubinski et al. 1983). Future work might be
Venkatesh and Morris 2000). While this may be directed at more closely examining the importance
of gender roles and exploring the socio-psycho-
true, our findings suggest this is particularly true
for the older generation of workers and those withlogical basis for gender as a means for better
understanding its moderating role.
relatively little experience with a system. While
existing studies have contributed to our under-
As is evident from the literature, the role of social
standing of gender and age influences indepen-
influence constructs has been controversial.
dently, the present research illuminates the inter-
play of these two key demographic variables and Some have argued for their inclusion in models
adoption and use (e.g., Taylor and Todd 1995
adds richness to our current understanding of the
phenomenon. We interpret our findings to sug- Thompson et al. 1991), while others have n
included them (e.g., Davis et al. 1989). Previou
gest that as the younger cohort of employees in
work has found social influence to be significa
the workforce mature, gender differences in how
only in mandatory settings (see Hartwick a
each perceives information technology may
Barki 1994; Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Oth
disappear. This is a hopeful sign and suggests
work has found social influence to be more
that oft-mentioned gender differences in the use of
significant among women in early stages of
information technology may be transitory, at least
experience (e.g., Venkatesh and Morris 2000
as they relate to a younger generation of workers
Still other research has found social influence to
raised and educated in the Digital Age.
be more significant among older workers (e.g.,
Morris and Venkatesh 2000). This research is
The complex nature of the interactions observed,
among the first to examine these moderating influ-
particularly for gender and age, raises severalences in concert. Our results suggest that social
interesting issues to investigate in future research,
influences do matter; however, they are more
especially given the interest in today's societallikely to be salient to older workers, particularly
and workplace environments to create equitable women, and even then during early stages of
settings for women and men of all ages. Future experience/adoption. This pattern mirrors that for
research should focus on identifying the potential
effort expectancy with the added caveat that social
"magic number" for age where effects begin to influences are more likely to be important in
appear (say for effort expectancy) or disappearmandatory usage settings. The contingencies
(say for performance expectancy). While gender identified here provide some insights into the way
and age are the variables that reveal an inter-in which social influences change over time and
may help explain some of the equivocal results
esting pattern of results, future research should
reported in the literature. By helping to clarify the
identify the underlying influential mechanisms--
potential candidates here include computer contingent nature of social influences, this paper
sheds light on when social influence is likely to
literacy and social or cultural background, among
play an important role in driving behavior and
others. Finally, although gender moderates three
when
key relationships, it is imperative to understand it is less likely to do so.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
UTAUT underscores this point and highlights the the extensive moderating influences examined
importance of contextual analysis in developing here, a research study that examines the general-
strategies for technology implementation within izability of these findings with significant repre-
organizations. While each of the existing models sentation in each cell (total number of cells: 24;
in the domain is quite successful in predicting two levels of voluntariness, three levels of experi-
technology usage behavior, it is only when one ence [no, limited, more], two levels of gender, and
considers the complex range of potential moder- at least two levels of age [young vs. old]) would be
ating influences that a more complete picture of valuable. Such a study would allow a pairwise,
the dynamic nature of individual perceptions about inter-cell comparison using the rigorous Chow's
technology begins to emerge. Despite the ability test and provide a clear understanding of the
of the existing models to predict intention and nature of effects for each construct in each cell.
usage, current theoretical perspectives on indivi- Related to the predictive validity of this class of
dual acceptance are notably weak in providing models in general and UTAUT in particular is the
prescriptive guidance to designers. For example, role of intention as a key criterion in user accep-
applying any of the models presented here might tance research-future research should investi-
inform a designer that some set of individuals gate other potential constructs such as behavioral
might find a new system difficult to use. Future
expectation (Warshaw and Davis 1985) or habit
research should focus on integrating UTAUT with
(Venkatesh et al. 2000) in the nomological net-
research that has identified causal antecedents of
work. Employing behavioral expectation will help
the constructs used within the model (e.g.,
account for anticipated changes in intention
Karahanna and Straub 1999; Venkatesh 2000;
(Warshaw and Davis 1985) and thus shed light
Venkatesh and Davis 2000) in order to provide a
even in the early stages of the behavior about the
greater understanding of how the cognitive pheno-
actual likelihood of behavioral performance since
mena that were the focus of this research are
intention only captures internal motivations to
formed. Examples of previously examined deter-
perform the behavior. Recent evidence suggests
minants of the core predictors include system
that sustained usage behavior may not be the
characteristics (Davis et al. 1989) and self-efficacy
result of deliberated cognitions and are simply
(Venkatesh 2000). Additional determinants that
routinized or automatic responses to stimuli (see
have not been explicitly tied into this stream but
merit consideration in future work include task- Venkatesh et al. 2000).
technologyfit (Goodhue and Thompson 1994) and
individual ability constructs such as "g"-general One of the most important directions for future
research is to tie this mature stream of research
cognitive ability/intelligence (Colquitt et al. 2000).
into other established streams of work. For
While the variance explained by UTAUT is quiteexample, little to no research has addressed th
high for behavioral research, further work shouldlink between user acceptance and individual or
attempt to identify and test additional boundaryorganizational usage outcomes. Thus, while it i
conditions of the model in an attempt to provideoften assumed that usage will result in positiv
outcomes, this remains to be tested. The unified
an even richer understanding of technology adop-
tion and usage behavior. This might take the formmodel presented here might inform further inquiry
of additional theoretically motivated moderating into the short- and long-term effects of information
technology implementation on job-related out-
influences, different technologies (e.g., collabora-
tive systems, e-commerce applications), different comes such as productivity, job satisfaction,
organizational
user groups (e.g., individuals in different functional commitment, and other perfor-
mance-oriented constructs. Future research
areas), and other organizational contexts (e.g.,
should study the degree to which systems per-
public or government institutions). Results from
such studies will have the important benefit ofceived as successful from an IT adoption per-
enhancing the overall generalizability of UTAUTspective (i.e., those that are liked and highly used
and/or extending the existing work to account forby users) are considered a success from an
organizational perspective.
additional variance in behavior. Specifically, given
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Last, but not least, we thank Jan DeGross for her Bem, D. J., and Allen, A. "On Predicting Some of
tireless efforts in typesetting this rather long the People Some of the Time: The Search for
paper. Cross-Situational Consistencies in Behavior,"
Psychological Review (81:6), 1974, pp. 506-
520.
References Bergeron, F., Rivard, S., and De Serre, L. "Inves-
tigating the Support Role of the Information
Agarwal, R., and Prasad, J. "A Conceptual andCenter," MIS Quarterly (14:3), 1990, pp. 247-
Operational Definition of Personal Innovative-
259.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Erlbaum Associates, New York, 1998, pp. 295- Eichinger, J., Heifetz, L.J., and Ingraham, C.
336. "Situational Shifts in Sex Role Orientation:
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., and Newsted, P. R. Correlates of Work Satisfaction and Burnout
"A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Among Women in Special Education," Sex
Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Roles (25:7/8), 1991, pp. 425-430.
Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Feldman, S. S., and Aschenbrenner, B. "Impact
Study and Voice Mail Emotion/Adoption Study," of Parenthood on Various Aspects of Mascu-
in Proceedings of the International Conference linity and Femininity: A Short-Term Longitu-
on Information Systems, J. I. DeGross, A. Srini- dinal Study," Developmental Psychology (19:2),
vasan, and S. Jarvenpaa (eds.), Cleveland, 1983, pp. 278-289.
OH, 1996, pp. 21-41. Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. Social Cognition,
Chow, G. C. "Tests of Equality Between Sets of McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions," Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Inten-
Econometrica (28:3), 1960, pp. 591-605. tion and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., and Noe, R. A. and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,
"Toward an Integrative Theory of Training Moti- 1975.
vation: A Meta-Analytic Path Analysis of 20 Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. "Evaluating Struc-
Years of Training Research," Journal ofApplied tural Equation Models with Unobservable
Psychology (85:5), 2000, pp. 678-707. Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra
Compeau, D. R., and Higgins, C. A. "Application and Statistics," Journal of Marketing Research
of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Com- (18:3), 1981, pp. 382-388.
puter Skills," Information Systems Research French, J. R. P., and Raven, B. "The Bases of
(6:2), 1995a, pp. 118-143. Social Power," in Studies in Social Power, D.
Compeau, D. R., and Higgins, C. A. "Computer Cardwright (ed.), Institute for Social Research,
Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Ann Arbor, MI, 1959, pp. 150-167.
Initial Test," MIS Quarterly (19:2), 1995b, pp.
Goodhue, D. L. "Understanding User Evaluations
189-211.
of Information Systems," Management Science
Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., and Huff, S.
(41:12), 1995, pp. 1827-1844.
"Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reac-
Goodhue, D. L., and Thompson, R. L. "Task-
tions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal
Technology Fit and Individual Performance,"
Study," MIS Quarterly (23:2), 1999, pp. 145-
MIS Quarterly (19:2), 1995, pp. 213-236.
158.
Hall, D., and Mansfield, R. "Relationships of Age
Davis, F. D. "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived
and Seniority with Career Variables of Engi-
Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Informa-
neers and Scientists," Journal of Applied
tion Technology," MIS Quarterly (13:3), 1989,
Psychology (60:2), 1995, pp. 201-210.
pp. 319-339.
Harrison, D. A., Mykytyn, P. P., and Riemen-
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R.
schneider, C. K. "Executive Decisions About
"Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Com-
Adoption of Information Technology in Small
puters in the Workplace," Journal of Applied
Business: Theory and Empirical Tests," Infor-
Social Psychology (22:14), 1992, pp. 1111-
1132. mation Systems Research (8:2), 1997, pp.
171-195.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R.
Hartwick, J., and Barki, H. "Explaining the Role of
"User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A
User Participation in Information System Use,"
Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Man-
agement Science (35:8), 1989, pp. 982-1002. Management Science (40:4), 1994, pp. 40-465.
Efron, B., and Gong, G. "A Leisurely Look at the Helson, R., and Moane, G. "Personality Change
Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and Cross-Validation," in Women from College to Midlife," Journal of
The American Statistician (37:1), 1983, pp. 36- Personality and Social Psychology (53:1),
48. 1987, pp. 176-186.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., and the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information
Tam, K. Y. "Examining the Technology Accep- Systems Research (2:3), 1991, pp. 173-191.
tance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Miller, J. B. Toward a New Psychology of
Telemedicine Technology," Journalof Manage- Women, Beacon Press, Boston, 1976.
ment Information Systems(16:2), 1999, pp. 91- Minton, H. L., and Schneider, F. W. Differential
112. Psychology, Waveland Press, Prospect
Jagacinski, C. M. "Androgyny in a Male-Domi- Heights, IL, 1980.
nated Field: The Relationship of Sex-Typed Moore, G. C., and Benbasat, I. "Development of
Traits to Performance and Satisfaction in Engi- an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of
neering, Sex Roles (17:X), 1987, pp. 529-547. Adopting an Information Technology Innova-
Karahanna, E., and Straub, D. W. "The Psycho- tion," Information Systems Research (2:3),
logical Origins of Perceived Usefulness and 1991, pp. 192-222.
Ease of Use," Information and Management Moore, G. C., and Benbasat, I. "Integrating Diffu-
(35:4), 1999, pp. 237-250. sion of Innovations and Theory of Reasoned
Action Models to Predict Utilization of Infor-
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., and Chervany, N.
L. "Information Technology Adoption Across mation Technology by End-Users," in Diffusion
Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre- and Adoption of Information Technology, K.
Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs," MIS Kautz and J. Pries-Hege (eds.), Chapman and
Quarterly (23:2), 1999, pp. 183-213. Hall, London, 1996, pp. 132-146.
Keys, D. E. "Gender, Sex Role, and Career Morris, M. G., and Venkatesh, V. "Age Dif-
ferences in Technology Adoption Decisions:
Decision Making of Certified Management Ac-
Implications for a Changing Workforce," Per-
countants," Sex Roles (13:1/2), 1985, pp. 33-
46. sonnel Psychology (53:2), 2000, pp. 375-403.
Motowidlo, S. J. "Sex Role Orientation and
Kirchmeyer, C. "Change and Stability in Mana-
Behavior in a Work Setting," Journal of Per-
ger's Gender Roles," Journal of Applied
sonality and Social Psychology (42:5), 1982,
Psychology (87:5), 2002, pp. 929-939.
pp. 935-945.
Kirchmeyer, C. "Gender Roles in a Traditionally
Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. Psychometric
Female Occupation: A Study of Emergency,
Theory (3rd ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
Operating, Intensive Care, and Psychiatric
Olfman, L., and Mandviwalla, M. "Conceptual
Nurses, Journal of Vocational Behavior (50:1),
Versus Procedural Software Training for
1997, pp. 78-95.
Graphical User Interfaces: A Longitudinal Field
Leonard-Barton, D., and Deschamps, I. "Mana- Experiment," MIS Quarterly (18:4), 1994, pp.
gerial Influence in the Implementation of New 405-426.
Technology," Management Science (34:10), Plouffe, C. R., Hulland, J. S., and Vandenbosch,
1988, pp. 1252-1265. M. "Research Report: Richness Versus Parsi-
Levy, J. A. "Intersections of Gender and Aging," mony in Modeling Technology Adoption Deci-
The Sociological Quarterly (29:4), 1988, pp. sions-Understanding Merchant Adoption of a
479-486.
Smart Card-Based Payment System," Infor-
Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A. and Butcher, J. N. mation Systems Research (12:2), 2001, pp.
"Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny 208-222.
Viewed and Assessed as Distinct Concepts," Plude, D., and Hoyer, W. "Attention and Perfor-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology mance: Identifying and Localizing Age Defi-
(44:2), 1983, pp. 428-439. cits," in Aging and Human Performance, N.
Lynott, P. P., and McCandless, N. J. "The Impact Charness (ed.), John Wiley & Sons, New York,
of Age vs. Life Experiences on the Gender Role 1985, pp. 47-99.
Attitudes of Women in Different Cohorts," Jour- Porter, L. "Job Attitudes in Management: Per-
nalof Women andAging (12:2), 2000, pp. 5-21. ceived Importance of Needs as a Function of
Mathieson, K. "Predicting User Intentions: Com- Job Level," Journal of Applied Psychology
paring the Technology Acceptance Model with (47:2), 1963, pp. 141-148.
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
West, S. G., and Hepworth, J. T., "Statistical Gordon B. Davis, Honeywell Professor of
Issues in the Study of Temporal Data: Daily Management Information Systems in the Carlson
Experiences," Journal of Personality (59:2), School of Management at the University of Minne-
1991, pp. 609-662. sota, is one of the founders of the academic
Westland, J. C., and Clark, T. H. K. Global Elec- discipline of information systems. He has lectured
tronic Commerce: Theory and Case Studies, in 25 countries and has written 20 books and over
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000. 200 articles, monographs, and book chapters. He
Wong, P. T. P., Kettlewell, G., and Sproule, C. F. participated in and helped form the major aca-
"On the Importance of Being Masculine: Sex demic associations related to the field of man-
Role, Attribution, and Women's Career agement information systems. He has been
Achievement," Sex Roles (12:7/8), 1985, pp.
honored as an ACM Fellow and an AIS Fellow,
757-769. and is a recipient of the AIS LEO award for
lifetime achievement in the field of information
systems. His research interests include concep-
About the Authors tual foundations of information systems, informa-
tion system design and implementation, and
Viswanath Venkatesh is Tyser Fellow, associatemanagement of the IS function. He has a Ph.D.
from Stanford University and honorary doctorates
professor, and director of MBA Consulting at the
Robert H. Smith School of Business at the Univer- from the University of Lyon, France, the University
sity of Maryland, and has been on the faculty there of Zurich, Switzerland and the Stockholm School
since 1997. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Economics, Sweden.
of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management.
His research interests are in implementation and Fred D. Davis is David D. Glass Endowed Chair
use of technologies in organizations and homes. Professor in Information Systems and Chair of the
His research has been published in many leading Information Systems Department at the Sam M.
journals including MIS Quarterly, Information Walton College of Business at the University of
Systems Research, Management Science, Com- Arkansas. Dr. Davis earned his Ph.D. at MIT's
munications of the ACM, Decision Sciences, Sloan School of Management, and has served o
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision the business school faculties at University
Processes, Personnel Psychology. He is currently Michigan, University of Minnesota, and Universi
an associate editor at MIS Quarterly and Infor- of Maryland. He has taught a wide range of infor
mation Systems Research. He received MIS mation technology (IT) courses at the under
Quarterly's "Reviewer of the Year" award in 1999. graduate, MBA, Ph.D., and executive levels. Dr.
Davis has served as associate editor for the
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Appendix A
The most critical concern when pooling repeated measures from the same subjects is the possibility of
correlated errors. West and Hepworth describe this problem as follows:
A perusal of the empirical literature over the past 30 years reveals some of the statistical
approaches to repeated measures over time that have been used by personality
researchers. The first and perhaps most classic approach is to aggregate the
observations collected over time on each subject to increase the reliability of
measurement (1991, p. 610).
However, in many cases, these observations will often violate the assumption of independence, requiring
alternate analyses (see West and Hepworth for an extended discussion of alternate approaches).
When error terms can be shown to be independent, West and Hepworth note that " traditional statistical
analyses such as ANOVA or MR [multiple regression] can be performed directly without any adjustment
of the data." (pp. 612-613). The best way to determine whether it is appropriate to pool data is to conduct
a test for correlated errors. In order for it to be acceptable to pool the data, the error terms should be
uncorrelated. A second approach uses bootstrapping to select subsamples to conduct a between-subjects
examination of the within-subjects data. In order for it to be acceptable to pool the data, this second test
should yield identical results to the test of the model on the complete data set. Below we report the results
from the specific findings from the correlated errors test and the pattern of findings from the second test.
We computed the error terms associated with the prediction of intention at T1, T2, and T3
(voluntary settings) and 2 (mandatory settings). Further, we also calculated the error terms w
across both settings-i.e., for cross-sectional tests of the unified model at T1, T2, and T3 r
These computations were conducted both for the preliminary test and the cross-validation (repo
The error term correlations across the intention predictions at various points in time are shown
that all error correlations are nonsignificant and, therefore, not significantly different fro
situations.
While the results above are compelling, as a second check, we pooled the data across different levels of
experience (T1, T2, and T3) and used PLS to conduct a between-subjects test using the within-subjects
data. We used a DOS version of PLS to conduct the analyses (the reason for not using PLS-Graph as in
the primary analyses in the paper was because it did not allow the specification of filtering rules for
selecting observations in bootstraps). Specifically for the between-subjects test, we applied a filtering rule
that selected any given respondent's observation at only one of the three time periods. This approach en-
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Study I (Voluntary) T1 T2 T3
T1
T2 .04
T3 .11 .09
Study 2 (Mandatory) T1 T2 T3
T1
T2 .07
T3 .08 .13
T2 .06
T3 .09 .10
sured that th
for systemat
derived supp
Taken togeth
experience an
temporal dat
MIS Qu
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Appendix B
As with the test of the preliminary model, prior to pooling the data for the cross-validation studies (studies
3 and 4), we conducted statistical tests to examine the independence of observations (as detailed in
Appendix A). The table below presents the error term correlation matrices for intention for studies 3
(voluntary) and 4 (mandatory) as well as pooled across both settings at T1, T2, and T3 respectively.
As in the preliminary test of UTAUT, the error correlation matrices above suggest that there is no constraint
to pooling in the cross-validation study of the model. As before, a between-subjects test of the within-
subjects data was tested using PLS (as described in Appendix A), and the results of that test corroborated
the independence of observations in this sample. In light of both sets of results, we proceeded with the
pooled analysis as reported in the body of the paper (see Table 21).
ToBoIoV
Perod
Study 3 (Voluntary) T1 T2 T3
T1
T2 .01
T3 .07 .11
Study 4 (Mandatory) T1 T2 T3
T1
T2 .04
T3 .02 .08
T2 .03
T3 .05 .10
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:49:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms