A Review of the Evolution of Research on Information
Technology Acceptance Model
DongPing Tang
School of Business Administration
South China University of Technology
Guangzhou, China
dptang@scut.edu.cn
Abstract—many research models about Information technology
(IT) acceptance have yielded, and each with different sets of de-
terminant factors of user acceptance behavior. In this paper, we
review user acceptance literature and discuss four important
models: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), The Extension of
the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2), the Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), and Technology
Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3). All the evolution process focus on
the key point that usage behavior are mediated by intention to
use. Also we have made comparative analysis to their main de-
terminants and made several recommendations for future re-
search.
Keywords-technology acceptance model; extension of the
technology acceptance model; technology adoption; information
system
I. INTRODUCTION
As the presence of computer and information technologies
in organizations has expanded dramatically, Information tech-
nology adoption and use in the workplace remains a central
concern of information systems (IS) research and practice
[1]. Enterprises invest in information technology expecting
economic returns and enhanced productivity. Prior research
has shown that the benefits of IT investments are often ob-
structed by user’s unwillingness to use available systems [2].
Such low use of the installed systems has been suggested as
one of the causes for the so-called “productivity paradox”. Yet,
for technologies to improve productivity, they must be ac-
cepted and used by employees in organizations [3]. Therefore,
furthering our understanding of the user’s adoption of informa-
tion systems is of value to researchers and practitioners alike.
The academia has made so much research focusing on infor-
mation technology acceptance and use since 40 years ago, and
it has become one of the most prolific and mature research
field in the modern information system literature.
A vast body of research studying user adoption information
systems exists, with some research on the evolution of accep-
tance and use, and significant progress has been made over
the last decade in explaining and predicting user acceptance
of information technology with roots in information sys-
tems, psychology, and sociology. In particular, substantial
theoretical and empirical support has accumulated in favor
Guandong Province Soft Science Research Project (2010B070300032);
Reformation Research Project on Experimental Teaching of South China
University of Technology (2009063);
Education Project on Industry-University-Research Cooperation of South
China University of Technology (2009042).
___________________________________
978-1-61284-109-0/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

LianJin Chen
School of Business Administration
South China University of Technology
Guangzhou, China
langeclj@foxmail.com
of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [4], The Exten-
sion of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2) [1], the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT) [3], and Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3)
[2]. Numerous empirical studies also have found that the mod-
els mentioned above (especially for TAM) consistently explain
a substantial proportion of the variance (typically around 40%)
in usage intentions and usage behavior. Especially, the influ-
ence of intention to use to usage behavior is the highlight re-
search issue across the four studies. Figure 1 shows the basic
concept underlying user acceptance models. In this paper, we
reviewed and made a comparative analysis of the four models
on the basic of information technology acceptance model the-
ory available.
Individual reactions Intentions to use Actual use of
to using information information information
technology technology technology
Figure 1. Basic concept underlying user acceptance models (Venkatesh et al.,
2003)
II. THE EVOLUTION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACCEPTANCE MODEL
A. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
The technology acceptance model (TAM) originated by
Davis et al. in 1989 [4] as an instrument to predict the likeli-
hood of a new technology being adopted within a group or an
organization. Based on the theory of reasoned action, it has by
far been the most widely discussed among all the related mod-
els [5]. The core concepts and structure of TAM are illustrated
in Figure 2, and it’s determined by two beliefs: perceived use-
fulness which is defined as the prospective user’s subjective
probability that using a specific application system will in-
crease one’s job performance within an organizational context
and perceived ease of use which refers to the degree to which
the prospective user expects the target system to be free of ef-
fort [1]. TAM postulates that actual technology usage is deter-
mined by intention to use, which in turn, is viewed as being
jointly determined by the person’s attitude toward using the
technology and perceived usefulness [5].TAM theorizes that
the effects of external variables (involving system characteris-
tics, development process, training) on intention to use are me-
diated by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Ac-
cording to TAM, perceived usefulness is also influenced by
perceived ease of use because, other things being equal, the
easier the system is to use, the more useful it can be.
Since the establishment of the model, TAM has gained dis-
tinct reputation for its outstanding performance to explain the
differences in user behavior [1]. Gregor Polancic et al. did an
empirical research in 2010, data collected from an online sur-
vey of 389 active framework users was used to test TAM.
Their findings support the post-adoption version of TAM and
the relationship between continuous use and the successful use
of systems [6], explained the variance of 59%. In addition, the
degree of the heterogeneity of the sample can actually lead to
the differentiation for the proportion of the variance in the
model.
Perceived
Usefulness
External Attitude Intention
Variables toward Use to Use behavior
Perceived
Ease of Use
Figure 2. Technology acceptance model (Davis et al., 1989)
B. The Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM2)
The extended technology acceptance model referred to as
TAM2 [1] was proposed by Venkatesh and Davis in 2000,
aimed at seeking for the critical influence factors outside of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and to en-
hance the adaptability of technology acceptance model. The
construct is illustrated in Figure 3. The proposed model was
empirically tested using longitudinal data collected regarding
four different organizations with a sample of 156, two involv-
ing voluntary usage and two involving mandatory usage.
Model constructs were measured at three points in time at each
organization. TAM2 was strongly supported for the measure-
ment, accounting for 40%-60% of the variance in perceived
usefulness and 34%-52% in intention to use [1].
The external variable in the model involves both social in-
fluence processes (subjective norm, voluntariness, and image)
and cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output
quality, result demonstrability, and perceived ease of use),
Subjective norm influenced perceived usefulness via both in-
ternalization, and identification, and had a direct effect on in-
tentions for mandatory, but not voluntary. Moreover, as indi-
viduals gained direct experience with a system over time, they
relied less on social information in forming perceived useful-
ness and intention but continued to judge a system’s useful-
ness on the basis of potential status benefits resulting from use
[1]. The interactive effect between job relevance and output
quality was found although it was not explicitly hypothesized
in determining perceived usefulness. Unlike social influence
processes, the influence of cognitive instrumental processes
maintained significant all the time. Park, S. Y. [7] tested the
extended model in the context of e-learning adoption process
with a sample of 628 university students in South Korea. The
result proved the extended model to be a good theoretical tool
to understand user’s acceptance of e-learning. E-learning self-
efficacy was the most important construct, followed by subjec-
tive norm in explicating the causal process in the model.
Experience Voluntariness
Subjective
Norm
Perceived
Image
Usefulness
Job Rele-
vance Intention Usage
to Use behavior
Output
Quality
Perceived
Result Demon- Ease of Use TAM
strability
Usage Figure 3. The extended TAM (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000)
C. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT)
The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology is
developed by Venkatesh et al. [3], aimed to unify eight promi-
nent competing IT acceptance and use models including the
theory of reasoned action (TRA), the technology acceptance
model (TAM), the motivational model (MM), the theory of
planned behavior (TPB), a model combining the technology
acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior (C-
TAM-TPB), the model of PC utilization (MPCU), the innova-
tion diffusion theory (IDT), and the social cognitive theory
(SCT). The construct is illustrated in Figure 4. It was empiri-
cally tested with a sample of 645 using the original data from
four organizations and then cross-validated using new data
from an additional two organizations. The results provided
strong empirical support for the proposed model. UTAUT was
able to account for 70 percent (adjusted R2) of the variance in
usage intention which is a substantial improvement. Despite
the limitations exist in the model, the UTAUT model is still an
important theoretical tool for it integrated eight major theories
regarding IT research and was valitated on a large real world
data. From the “behavioral science vs. design science” per-
spective, UTAUT is a behavioral model that aims to explain
the behavior of people or organizations in their use of IS [8].
The model contains four core variables: performance ex-
pectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating
conditions, and four moderating variables: gender, age, ex-
perience, and voluntariness of use. Also it posits three direct
determinants of intention to use (performance expectancy,
effort expectancy, and social influence) and two direct deter-
minants of usage behavior (intention and facilitating condi-
tions). Significant moderating influences of experience, volun-
tariness, gender, and age were confirmed as integral features

of UTAUT [3]. Boonchai et al. employed the UTAUT struc- builded on the anchoring and adjustment framing of human
tural model to understand the important factors for the success decision making [10], proposed an integrated model of tech-
of health information technology implementation in user's nology acceptance—TAM3 (see Figure 6). The anchors con-
acceptance and use of that technology with a random sample sist of computer self-efcacy, computer anxiety, and computer
of 1607, and structural equation modeling is used to test the playfulness, perceptions of facilitating conditions, and the ad-
model. Results showed that the UTAUT model fits the data justments consist of perceived enjoyment and objective usabil-
collected well, explained the variance of 54% in intention to ity [10]. As the model posited, the effect of computer anxiety
use [9]. on perceived ease of use is moderated by experience but the
effect became weak as the increase of user experience, the
Performance anchors were signicant predictors of perceived ease of use.
Expectancy
None of the determinants of perceived usefulness had a
Effort Expec- signicant effect on perceived ease of use. Interaction effect
tancy Behavioral
Intention
Use Behavior among subjective norm, experience, and voluntariness was
Social Influ- found to be significant on behavioral intention. Behavioral
ence
intention remained a signicant predictor of use at all the four
Facilitating studies. Given that TAM3 is a latest model for technology
Conditions
acceptance, more empirical researches are needed to test its
Voluntariness practical use.
Gender Age Experience of Use
Figure 4. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh Experience Voluntariness
et al., 2003)
Subjective
D. Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) Norm

Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and

Image
why users make decisions about the acceptance and use of
Perceived
information technologies. From an organizational point of Job Rele-
Usefulness
vance
view, however, the more important issue is how managers
make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to Output
Quality
greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT [2]. To ad- Intention Usage
dress this gap in the literature, Venkatesh and Bala Synthe- Result Demon- to Use behavior
strability
sized prior research on TAM, proposed a new theoretical
framwork (shown in Figure 5) that emphasis the cumulative Anchor Perceived
knowledge accumulated over the years from prior research. Ease of Use TAM
The integrated model was empirically tested over a 5-month Adjustment

period with four points of measurements and with a sample of Figure 6. Technology acceptance model 3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008)
156 at each time period, the longitudinal eld studies were
conducted and data were collected from four different organi- III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE FOUR MODELS
zations. The results supported TAM3 very well, explained As a sketchy and dominant model for investigating user
53% of the variance in intention to use. technology acceptance, TAM provided important basis for the
subsequent studies; By extending the TAM, TAM2 enriched
the source of the determinant factors of perceived usefulness
Individual and perceived ease of use; UTAUT synthesized and unified
Differences Perceived
Usefulness
eight prominent IT acceptance and use models, and it provides
System Char-
some new theories and methods for follow-up studies; TAM3
acteristics extended TAM2 as well as integrated some other variables, so
Behavioral Use it’s comprehensive and potentially maneuverability. From the
Intention behavior
Social Influ- basic TAM to the newly proposed TAM3, intention to use
ence
maintains the critical factor in mediating usage behavior all the
Perceived
Ease of Use
time.
Facilitating
Conditions Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) As is evident from table I, intention to use consistently ex-
plains at least 40% proportion of the variance for all the models,
Figure 5. Theoretical Framwork of TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008)
and usage behavior explains at least 31% proportion of the
variance except for TAM2. The high proportion of the variance
According to the proposed framework, there are four different also verifies that the process usage behavior is mediated by
types of determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived intention to use has played a central part in the model of tech-
ease of use including individual differences, system character- nology acceptace. In addition, Table II shows that both of the
istics, social inuence, and facilitating conditions. Based on correlation coefficient of intention to use and perceived useful-
the framework, Venkatesh and Bala combined TAM2 and the ness has been almost constant at around 0.5 throughout the four
model of the determinants of perceived ease of use which was models and each study, while the correlation coefficient of per-


ceived ease of use varies in differernt models and organizations, future research should be conducted with larger samples
which implies that perceived ease of use is an instable variable across different organizations and time periods.
and much more to be done to ensure it’s influencing factors.
REFERENCES
TABLE I. EXPLAINED VARIANCE IN THE MODELS [1] Venkatesh, V., Davis, F. D. “A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal eld studies,” Management Science,
Explained Variance (Adjusted R2) 46, 2000, pp. 186–204.
Intentione to use Usage behavior [2] Viswanath, V. Hillol Bala. “Technology acceptance model 3 and a
research agenda on interventions,” Decision Sciences, vol. 39(2), 2008.
TAM 45%~61% 31%~74% [3] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. ̌User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS
TAM2 34%~52% ----
Quarterly (27:3), 2003, pp. 425-478.
UTAUT 70% 52% [4] Davis. “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, 13, 1989, pp. 319–340.
TAM3 53% 35%
[5] ZHANG Nan, GUO Xun-hua, CHEN Guo-qing. “Extended information
Note. ” ----” means the value is not tested in the model. technology initial acceptance model and its empirical test,” Systems
Engineering - Theory & Practice, vol. 27 (9), 2007, pp. 123–130.
TABLE II. CORRELATION COEFFICINT IN THE MODELS [6] Gregor Polancic, Marjan Hericko, Ivan Rozman. “An empirical
examination of application frameworks success based on technology
Correlation Coefficient () acceptance model,” The Journal of Systems and Software, 83, 2010, pp
574–584.
Intentioned Perceived Perceived [7] Park, S. Y. “An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in
to use usefulness easy to use Understanding University Students' Behavioral Intention to Use e-
TAM 0.35***~0.63*** 0.55**~0.76** 0.01~0.20** Learning,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 12 (3). 2009.pp
150–162.
TAM2 0.52*** 0.55*** 0.17** [8] Mark Turnera, Barbara Kitchenhama, Pearl Brereton, Stuart Charters,
David Budgen. “Does the technology acceptance model predict actual
UTAUT 0.51*** ---- ---- use? A systematic literature review,” Information and Software
Technology, 52, 2010, pp. 463–479.
TAM3 0.59*** 0.56*** 0.04
[9] Boonchai Kijsanayotina, Supasit Pannarunothaib, Stuart M. Speedie.
Note. * P < 0.05. ** P < 0.01. *** P < 0.001. ” ----” means the item is not contained in the model “Factors influencing health information technology adoption in
Thailand's community health centers: Applying the UTAUT model,”
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78, 2009, pp. 404–416.
IV. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
[10] Venkatesh, V. “Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating
It’s certain that user adoption information technology re- perceived behavioral control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the
technology acceptance model,” Information Systems Research, 11, 2000,
mains an elusive, complex, yet extremely important research pp. 342–365.
to be done. In this paper, we reviewed four typical models [11] Bhattacherjee, A., and Premkumar, G. “Understanding changes in belief
regarding user adoption and use informtion technology. Each and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model
of these models makes important and unique contributions to and longitudinal test,” MIS Quarterly (28:2), 2004, pp. 229-254.
the literature on user acceptance of IT. The primary purpose of [12] Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., Todd, P. A. “Perceived usefulness, ease of
this paper is to synthesize the current state of research with use, and usage of information technology: A replication,” MIS Quarterly
(16:2), 1992, pp. 227-247.
respect to understanding individual adoption and use new in-
[13] Venkatesh, V., Davis, F. D., Morris, M. G.. “Dead or alive? The
formation technologies. development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research,”
According to the literature review, we can conclude that Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 2007, pp. 267–
recent efforts regarding technology acceptance model are 286.
mostly focused on the two dimensions: enriching or extending [14] Grandon, E., Alshare, O., Kwan, O. “Factors influencing student
the model from theoretical perspectives; and empirically fur- intention to adopt online classes: A cross-cultural study,” Journal of
Computing Sciences in Colleges,vol. 20(4), 2005, pp. 46–56.
ther validating the performance of the model with various in-
[15] Soussan Djamasbi, Diane M. Strong, Mark Dishaw. “Affect and
novations in different environments. While the present studies acceptance: Examining the effects of positive mood on the technology
on TAM and its extended models has made great progress, we acceptance model,” Decision Support Systems, 48, 2010, pp. 383–394.
recommend three aspects that should be paid more attention to [16] Timothy Teo. “The impact of subjective norm and faciliting conditions
for furure research: Firstly, some new variables comes from on pre-service teachers’ attitude towards computer use: a structural
equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model,”
other theories or subjects should be introduced into the new Educational Computing Research, vol. 40(1), 2009, pp. 89-109.
model so that the new model is easier to interprete; What’s [17] Morris, M. G., and Venkatesh, V. “Job characteristics and job
more, perceived ease of use is an instable factor across the satisfaction: Understanding the role of enterprise resource planning
four studies, so it’s determinants need to be renewed; Finally system implementation,” MIS Quarterly (34:1), 2010, pp. 153-161.