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

net/publication/270282896

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): A Decade of

Validation and Development

Conference Paper · December 2014

CITATIONS READS

31 28,644

1 author:

Mohammad Ibraheem Ahmad

Alexandria University
21 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Brief History of Technology Acceptance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Ibraheem Ahmad on 28 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (UTAUT)
A Decade of Validation and Development
Mohammad I. Ahmad
M.S., MAIS Alexandria Univ., Egypt, PGD IT, Amity Univ. India.
mohammad.ibraheem.ahmad@gmail.com
 determine factors that contribute to enhancement of integration
Abstract— This Paper aims to review IT adoption literature
concerning validation and development of Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). In [1] UTAUT was
introduced as an accumulation of various research efforts
represented in different models and theories of Technology
Acceptance. The UTAUT is considered as a trial to unify
terminology of variables of different models and theories of
Technology Acceptance.
The theory was established on four theoretical constructs
representing determinants of Use Behavior or the Intention to
Use, which play essential roles as surrogates of Technology
Acceptance. These constructs are: Performance Expectancy,
Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions.
In addition to these variables the theory considers also
Moderating Factors which moderate the relations between
various constructs and Intention to Use. The Moderators are
Gender, Age, Experience, and Voluntariness of use.
It has been a decade since UTAUT was first introduced by
[1]. Since then numerous studies either empirically validate or
theoretically contribute to the theory. Some of them empirically
validate the theory (either in western countries or across different
cultures) or even replicate results of [1]. Theory validation and
adaptation to be applied in different settings are briefly discussed.
A literature review revealed three major trends of theoretical
contributions to the theory: suggestion of New Constructs,
suggestion of new Moderating Factors, and Finally Theory
Extensions and Integration with other theories and models. These
research trends are addressed in this Paper.
Index Terms—UTAUT, Technology Acceptance, IT adoption,
Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence,
and Facilitating Conditions.
I. INTRODUCTION
W hile organizations sought to meet the growing needs of
information, especially in the modern business
environment which is characterized by risk and uncertainty,
they adopt information technology to enable them to meet their
information needs. It has been well established, in IT adoption
literature, that IT won't be effective unless it is used. Since the
seventies of twentieth century, researchers search for and
In proceedings of Fourth International Conference on ICT in our lives 2014
―Information Systems Supporting Decision Making” (ISSN 2314-8942),
Information Systems and Computer Science Department, Faculty of
Commerce, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt, December 20-22,
2014.
1
of information systems with operations within organizations.
These research efforts resulted in a great number of factors.
Among these factors system use gains researchers interest [2].
As shown in [3], current research efforts regarding System use
results in two main research streams; User Satisfaction and
Technology Acceptance.
At the beginning, researchers’ attention was drawn to User
Satisfaction which is defined as "the sum of one’s feelings or
attitudes toward a variety of factors affecting the situation" [2]
pp. 192.
On the other hand, based on general assumption that the
relationship between the use of information technology and the
performance is positive, it was pointed out in [4] that
researchers examined many factors ( related to individuals,
organization , and technology ) to specifying main factors that
affect system use behavior . These efforts result in Technology
Acceptance as surrogate of system use. Researchers in IS field
proposed models, which are derived from Social psychology
field, concern with Behavioral Intention as a possible
theoretical foundation for system use determinants [5].
Technology Acceptance Models tried to identify and
investigate Behavioral Intensions of users. As a matter of fact,
there is a variety of Technology Acceptance models and
theories. Although they are similar in concepts and variables,
they differ in methodologies and interpretation of the
phenomenon (Technology Acceptance).
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT) was introduced by [1] as an accumulation of various
research efforts represented in different models and theories of
Technology Acceptance. The UTAUT is considered as a trial
to unify terminology of variables of different models and
theories of Technology Acceptance. Development of this
theory has many facets. These are addressed in this paper.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II represents
theoretical foundation of UTAUT. Section III reviews IT
literature adoption for UTAUT Validation. Section IV
represents the first facet of UTAUT development, New
Constructs. Section V represents the second facet of UTAUT
development, New Moderators. Section VI represents the final
facet of UTAUT development, Model Extensions and
Integration with other Models. Finally, Section VII shows
Conclusions.
 II. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF UNIFIED THEORY OF
ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY (UTAUT)
Driven by a motivation to unify these research efforts in
Technology Acceptance literature, UTAUT was introduced
and developed by [1] a decade ago, based on eight Technology
Acceptance competing models. These models and theories are
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, the
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), and the Social Cognitive
Theory (SCT).
The theory was established on four theoretical constructs
representing determinants of Intention to Use or Usage
Behavior, which play essential roles as surrogates of
Technology Acceptance. These constructs are: Performance
Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and
Facilitating Conditions. In addition to these variables the
theory considers also moderating factors which moderate the
relations between various variables and Intention to Use. The
Moderators are Gender, Age, Experience, and Voluntariness
of use.
Fig 1 illustrates UTAUT showing Theoretical Constructs,
Moderators and interrelations.
Fig. 1. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology,
Source [1] pp. 447.
A. Theoretical constructs of UTAUT and their moderators:
Performance Expectancy (PE)
Performance expectancy is ―the degree to which an
individual believes that using the system will help him or her
to attain gains in job performance‖ [1] pp. 447. There are five
key variables derived from Technology Acceptance Models
match Performance Expectancy according to [1]:
1. Perceived Usefulness, which is derived from Technology
Acceptance Model ( TAM \ TAM 2 ), Combined TAM
and TPB (C–TAM–TPB), is defined as ―The prospective
user's subjective probability that using a specific
application system will increase his or her job
performance within an organizational context‖ [5] pp.
985.
2
2. Extrinsic Motivation, which is derived from Motivational
Model (MM) introduced by [6], is defined as ―The
perception that users will want to perform an activity
because it is perceived to be instrumental in achieving
valued outcomes that are distinct from the activity itself‖
[1] pp. 428. 1
3. Job-Fit, which is derived from Model of PC Utilization
(MPCU), is defined as ―The extent to which an individual
believes that using [a technology] can enhance the
performance of his or her job‖ [7] pp. 128.
4. Relative advantage, which is derived from Innovation
Diffusion Theory (IDT), is defined as ―The degree to
which an innovation is perceived as being better than its
precursor‖ [8] pp. 195.
5. Outcome Expectations, which is derived from Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT), is defined as ―perceived likely
consequences of using computers‖ [9] pp. 147.
As declared in [1] Performance Expectancy remains
significant and is the strongest construct as a predictor of
Intention among Technology Acceptance Models and
Theories. It was expected (from a theoretical Point of view)
that Although Gender, and Age moderate the relationship
between Performance Expectancy and Intention to Use,
Studies have shown recently that taking into account the
Gender factor alone results in misleading results unless the
Age factor is taken into account too [1]. Therefore it is
expected in [1] that both Gender and Age moderates the
impact of expected performance.
Effort Expectancy (EE)
Effort Expectancy is ―The degree of ease associated with the
use of the system‖ [1] pp. 450. There are three key variables
derived from Technology Acceptance Models match Effort
Expectancy according to [1]:
1. Perceived Ease of Use, which is derived from Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM \ TAM 2), is defined as ―The
degree to which the prospective user expects the target
system to be free of effort‖ [5] pp. 985.
2. Complexity, which is derived from Innovation Diffusion
Theory (IDT) and Model of PC Utilization (MPCU), is
defined as ―The degree to which an innovation is
perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use‖ [8]
pp. 195, [7] pp. 128.
3. Ease of use, which is derived from Innovation Diffusion
Theory (IDT), is defined as ―the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as being difficult to use‖ [8] pp.
195.
Again, similarities between some of these variables are
pointed out in [1]. As explained in the performance
Expectancy, Gender and Age are expected to moderate the
relationship between Effort Expectancy and Intention to Use.
Furthermore, Experience is expected to moderate this
relationship also. Accordingly, it is expected in [1] that the
effect of Effort Expectancy on Intention will be stronger for
1
Reference [6] as cited in [1] pp. 428.
women, particularly younger women, at early stages of
experience dealing with the system.
Social Influence (SI)
Social Influence is ―The degree to which an individual
perceives that important others believe he or she should use
the new system‖ [1] pp. 451. There are three key variables
derived from Technology Acceptance Models match Social
Influence according to [1]:
1. Subjective Norm, which is derived from Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA), Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM \ TAM 2), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB),
Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (DTPB),
Combined TAM and TPB (C–TAM–TPB), is defined as
―The person's perception that most people who are
important to him think he should or should not perform
the behavior in question‖ [5] pp. 984.
2. Social Factors, which is derived from Model of PC
Utilization (MPCU), is defined as ―The individual’s
internalization of the reference group’s subjective culture,
and specific interpersonal agreements that the individual
has made with others, in specific social situations‖ [7] pp.
126.
3. Image, which is derived from Innovation Diffusion
Theory (IDT), is defined as ―The degree to which use of
an innovation is perceived to enhance one’s image or
status in one’s social system‖ [8] pp. 195.
Many studies (e.g. [5], [10]) pointed out the complex role of
Social Influence in Technology Acceptance. They pointed out
that it is subject to a wide range of conditional influences. It
has an effect on individual behavior through three
mechanisms; Compliance, Internalization, and Identification.
While the last two mechanisms relate to changing and
modifying individual's beliefs structure and/or lead to the
individual's response to potential gains from the situation or
social status, the Compliance mechanism leads to changing
individual's intention as a response to social pressures. i.e. An
individual comply with the impact of social influence (for
those referent others who have the ability to motivate and
reward the desired behavior of these individuals, and penalize
unwanted behavior) only in the presence of moderating effect
of voluntarily use.
It is expected in [1] that women tend to be more sensitive to
the opinions of others and thus the effect of social Influence
will be stronger for women while forming intention to use new
technology. As Experience increase, this effect will decline
specially in the older ages. As such, it is expected that there
will be a complex and interactive relationships between these
moderating factors leading to final moderating impact on the
relationship between Social influence and Intention to use.
Facilitating Conditions (FC)
Facilitating Conditions is ―The degree to which an
individual believes that an organizational and technical
infrastructure exists to support use of the system‖ [1] pp. 453.
There are three key variables derived from Technology
3
Acceptance Models match Facilitating Conditions according to
[1]:
1. Perceived Behavioral Control, which is derived from
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Decomposed Theory
of Planned Behavior (DTPB), Combined TAM and TPB
(C–TAM–TPB), is defined as ―individual perception of
the presence or absence of requisite resources and
opportunities‖ [11] pp. 175. According to [12] it reflects
perceptions of internal and external constraints on
behavior, and Includes Self-efficacy, resource facilitating
conditions, and technology facilitating conditions.
2. Facilitating Conditions, which is derived from Model of
PC Utilization (MPCU), is defined as ―Objective factors
in the environment that observers agree make an act easy
to accomplish.‖ [7] pp. 129.
3. Compatibility, which is derived from Innovation Diffusion
Theory (IDT), is defined as ―The degree to which an
innovation is perceived as being consistent with the
existing values, needs, and past experiences of potential
adopters‖ [8] pp. 195.
As pointed out in [1] if the model does not include Effort
Expectancy as a predictor of Intention, Facilitating Conditions
will have high predictive power of Intention to use. However,
in the presence of both of Performance Expectancy and Effort
Expectancy constructs, it is expected for Facilitating
Conditions to be nonsignificant in predicting Intention to Use.
It is expected in [1] that Age and experience moderates the
relationship between Facilitating Conditions and Intention to
use. As Experience increase, this effect will be stronger
especially in the older ages.
B. Constructs that are not considered in UTAUT as direct
determinants of Intention
As pointed out in [1], literature does not consider Self-
efficacy and Anxiety, although they appear to be direct
determinant of Intention to Use according to Social Cognitive
Theory (SCT). UTAUT does not consider them as direct
determinant of Intention to Use. This is because according to
UTAUT, they haven't significant effect on Intention to Use.
Similarly, UTAUT did not take into account Attitude toward
using technology, and thus is omitted, in contrast to most
Technology Acceptance models and theories. While Self-
efficacy, and Anxiety are simple variables, Attitude toward
Using technology is a complex (multi-dimension) construct
which involves a composite number of variables [5], [13].
Attitude Toward Using Technology
Attitude toward using technology is ―individual’s overall
affective reaction to using a system‖ [1] pp. 455. There are
four key variables derived from Technology Acceptance
Models match Attitude toward using technology according to
[1]:
1. Attitude Toward Behavior, which is derived from Theory
of Reasoned Action (TRA), Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB), Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior
 (DTPB), and Combined TAM and TPB (C–TAM–TPB), the model (Performance Expectancy, and Effort Expectancy).
is defined as ―An individual's positive or negative feelings Findings of [1] proved that in the presence of both of them,
(evaluative affect) about performing the target behavior‖ there is no significant direct effect of Attitude Toward Using
[5] pp. 984. Technology on technology use behavior.
2. Intrinsic Motivation, which is derived from Motivational
C. Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intention
Model (MM) introduced by [6], is defined as ―The
perception that users will want to perform an activity for It was suggested by [1] that there is a significant positive
no apparent reinforcement other than the process of effect of Behavioral Intention on the use of technology.
performing the activity per se‖ [1] pp. 428. 2 Table (1) summarizes results of experimental tests of [1].
3. Affect toward Use, which is derived from Model of PC
Utilization (MPCU), is defined as ―Feelings of joy, It has been a decade since UTAUT was first introduced by
elation, or pleasure, or depression, disgust, displeasure, or [1]. Since then numerous studies either empirically validate or
hate associated by an individual with a particular act‖ [7] theoretically contribute to the theory. Some of them
pp. 127. empirically validate the theory. Others theoretically contribute
4. Affect, which is derived from Social Cognitive Theory to UTAUT by either proposing new constructs, or moderating
(SCT), is defined as ―An individual’s liking for a factors, or even extending and integrating the theory with other
particular behavior (e.g., computer use)‖ [9] pp. 148. models. These research efforts will be discussed in the next
It was suggested by [1] that Attitude Toward Using sections.
Technology will not have a significant direct effect on
intention to use unless two main constructs are excluded from
III. MODEL VALIDATION
TABLE I Vast majority of studies in Technology Acceptance
UTAUT EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS SUMMARY A
literature empirically validate the theory (either in western
Dependent Independent
Variables Variables
Moderators Explanation countries or across different cultures) or even replicate results
of [1]. In this section, these issues will be addressed.
Behavioral Performance Effect stronger for men
Gender, Age
Intention Expectancy and younger workers A. Validation of Full version of UTAUT
Effect stronger for Although UTAUT didn’t consider Attitude toward using
Behavioral Effort Gender, Age, women, older workers,
Intention Expectancy Experience and those with limited
technology, besides Anxiety, and Self-efficacy constructs, as
Experience direct determinant of Behavioral Intension and system Use due
to their insignificance, number of studies validates full version
Effect stronger for
Gender, Age, women, older workers, of UTAUT (including Attitude, Anxiety, Self-efficacy). This is
Behavioral Social
Intention Influence
Voluntariness, under conditions of because Attitudes is considered a main construct in many
Experience mandatory use, and with models and theories of Technology Acceptance. Furthermore,
limited Experience
it is also considered in these theories and models as a
Nonsignificant due to multidimensional construct [5], [6], [11], [12].
Behavioral Facilitating
None the effect being captured
Intention conditions
by Effort Expectancy
In the context of educational technology acceptance, the full
version of UTAUT was validated in [14]. A total of 262
Effect stronger for older respondents from a business administration undergraduate
Facilitating Age,
Usage workers with increasing
Conditions Experience
Experience level course at a Midwestern university were surveyed for their
acceptance of Blackboard; an educational Web-based software
Nonsignificant due to system. Results of [14] demonstrate satisfactory reliable and
Behavioral Computer
None the effect being captured
Intention Self-efficacy valid scales of the model constructs, and suggest further
by Effort Expectancy
analysis to confirm the model as a valuable tool to evaluate the
Nonsignificant due to user acceptance of an information technology.
Behavioral Computer
None the effect being captured
Intention Anxiety A modification of UTAUT was proposed by [15] to
by Effort Expectancy
evaluate students’ acceptance of mobile computing devices
Nonsignificant to the Tablet PC. Results showed that variables of Performance
Attitude
Behavioral effect being captured by
Intention
toward using None
process Expectancy and
Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Attitude toward Using
tech. Technology, Self efficacy are key components of Behavioral
Effort Expectancy
Intent. Social Influence and Anxiety do not appear to have
Behavioral
Usage
Intention
None Direct effect much contribution to behavioral intent. Gender, Age,
a
Experience, and Voluntary use are considered as Moderating
Source [1] pp. 468.
Conditions. All Moderators, except for Experience, were
found to not have any effect. Experience with computers was
2
Reference [6] as cited in [1] pp. 428.

4
shown to have a significant impact on the acceptance of
technology indicated by the significance found between
freshman and upper classmen in the study.
The modified full version of UTAUT was proposed in [16]
to investigate IT based management accounting information
systems use in Egypt. Modified UTAUT takes into account
Attitude toward using technology (as a multidimensional
construct that considers both positive and negative attitudes),
besides Anxiety, and Self-efficacy, as a direct determinant of
Behavioral Intention and System Use. On the other hand,
modified UTAUT considers original moderating factors
including Cultural Values. Results reveal significance of all
Constructs (including Attitudes, Anxiety, and Self-efficacy),
while moderators are not.
To examine Acceptance and Usage of open access within
public universities using the full version of UTAUT based
open access adoption model, a survey of 544 university
researchers at six public universities in Tanzania was
conducted by [17]. Age, Experience, Gender, Awareness and
Position (Rank) of the researchers have been considered as
moderators (Voluntariness was dropped as a moderator in this
respect).
Among the findings of [17], Attitude, Awareness, Effort
Expectancy and Performance Expectancy were established as
the key determinants for the researchers’ Behavioral Intentions
of open access usage. Similarly, Age, Awareness, Behavioral
Intention, Facilitating Conditions and Social Influence were
found to significantly affect researchers’ actual Usage of open
access.
Unlike most Technology acceptance literature that utilize
UTAUT, a replication of full UTAUT, with no changes or
elimination of constructs, was conducted by [18] in an
academic environment for educational technologies introduced
to the students in higher-Education in Qatar.
A mixed support for UTAUT was found. PE, EE, FC and
Attitude towards using technology were significant
determinants of technology acceptance. All moderating
variables had a significant moderating influence except for
experience, which was surprisingly not significant. The results
of [18] show that UTAUT is found to be applicable to some
extent in the educational setting, but might need a few
modifications to fit the context.
In the context of e-marketing of Future Internet Ultra-Large-
Scale (ULS) solution development, the market acceptance of
CHOReOS Project3 assessment is done in [19] using the full
version of UTAUT. The effects of PE, EE, SI, Self-efficacy,
FC, CHOReOS products Anxiety, and Attitude towards
CHOReOS products on Behavioral Intention and the Use of
CHOReOS products are examined. Furthermore, moderators
of Gender, Age, Country, Industry, and Occupation are
considered. Results revealed some concepts have a more
3
CHOReOS is the European 7th Framework FP7-ICT-2009-5 project No.
257178 (2010-2013) ―Large Scale Choreographies for the Future Internet
(IP)‖ which is aimed to elaborate on new methods and tools related to Future
Internet Ultra-Large-Scale (ULS) solution development based on the use of
choreographies [19]
significant relationship – the relationship between Performance
Expectancy, Effort Expectancy and Behavioral Intention. It is
also significant between Attitude toward Using Technology
and Facilitating Condition and Self-efficacy. An insignificant
relationship between Age and SI, FC and SE, and Industry and
Attitude toward Using Technology is revealed. The data also
shows a significant relationship between Self-efficacy and
Facilitating Condition. Conclusions drawn from [19] results
show that all of UTAUT relations are supported except for the
moderating effect of Age and Industry.
B. Cross-Culture Validation
Diverse cultures result in different results of Technology
Acceptance [20], [21], [22], particularly in the Middle East
and the Arab region [23]. Validating UTAUT across diverse
cultures is considered in this section.
Validation of UTAUT outside its original country and
language of origin, over nine culturally-diverse countries was
examined by [20]. Results provide cross-cultural validity of
Technology Acceptance with respect to UTAUT, which may
be useful in providing insight into cross-cultural technology
acceptance differences.
Use and acceptance of Web 2.0 applications was compared
by [21] between American and Korean college students using
UTAUT through the lens of cultural differences based on
Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions. While modified UTAUT
considers Attitude and Anxiety, FC is dropped. The study
targeted six Web 2.0 applications (blogs, instant messenger,
online social communities / Facebook, online video sharing /
YouTube, online video and audio conference/Skype, and
social virtual communities/Second Life).
Results of [21] show that American and South Korean
students tend to differ in their technology Acceptance levels
and the Usage of Web 2.0 applications for learning.
Significant differences on utilization level and the Anxiety
level for using them were found in numerous Web 2.0
applications. Korean students responded that most Web 2.0
applications are apprehensive for them to use when compared
to their counterparts in the U.S.. Korean students reported
positive Attitudes towards Using blogs and participating in
online social communities but they had high Anxiety levels in
using online conferencing tools (eg., Skype) and social virtual
environments (eg., Second Life). American students perceived
a high difficulty level in using several Web 2.0 applications,
such as social virtual environment tools, while they felt at ease
in participating in online social communities (eg., Facebook).
American students felt optimistic in using instant messenger
and online video sharing for learning but their survey
responses showed lower levels of Anxiety towards online
conferencing and social virtual environments.
Conclusions drawn from [21] show that although Web 2.0
applications themselves are neutral but users are always
affected by their cultural contexts.
Based on a survey of 1723 Turkish educational technology

5
users of diverse profession, geographical location, age and
gender, the applicability of UTAUT was extended to Turkish
culture by [22] in the context of Educational Technology
Acceptance (ETA). Modified UTAUT considers Anxiety and
Computer Literacy along with other UTAUT constructs. Using
Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions, cross-cultural differences are
explored within Turkey both between regions (Istanbul area
vs. other regions) and between professional cultures (STEM,
i.e. science, mathematics, engineering and mathematics, vs.
non-STEM professions). Conclusions of [22] are drawn with
respect to UTAUT applicability in educational practice, and to
interconnections between ETA and culture. Results confirm
the wide applicability of the ETA concept, as conceptualized
in UTAUT.
Another attempt to examine applicability of UTAUT in the
context of ETA concept was done by [24]. The study further
attempts to integrate three of Hofstede’s culture dimensions
(Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty avoidance) into
extended UTAUT, enlarging the picture of the relationship of
ETA and culture. Not only does the model consider Hofested's
Cultural Values, but it considers Geographic Location
(Germany - Romania) and profession (STEM - Non-STEM) as
well.
Based on a survey of 2866 learning technology users from
Germany and Romania, the model was validated by [24].
Results reveal the presence of cultural differences both
between countries and between professions. Compared with
Germans, Romanians display higher Performance Expectancy,
lower Effort Expectancy, higher Social Influence, lower
Perceived Facilitating Conditions, higher Computer Anxiety,
higher Use Intention and lower technology Use. Results also
showed very weak influence of Technology Use Intention on
the actual Use Behavior. On the other hand, compared with
STEM professionals, non-STEM professionals display lower
Performance Expectancy, higher Effort Expectancy, lower
Social Influence, lower Perceived Facilitating Conditions,
higher Computer Anxiety, lower Use Intention and lower
Technology Use. Non-STEM professionals perceive their
computer literacy higher than STEM professionals. As for the
moderating influence of Profession on the UTAUT model,
there are notable differences in the influences of effort
expectancy on Use Intention, and of Facilitating Conditions
and Computer Anxiety on the Use Behavior.
C. Replication of UTAUT
In this section, replication of the original UTAUT in
different settings is discussed.
A modified version of UTAUT was proposed and examined
by [23] in determining Intention to Use and Usage Behavior of
desktop computer applications on a voluntary basis in Saudi
Arabia. Findings show overall consistency with literature
except for moderating effects of Gender, rather than influence
of EE and FC.
6
Factors determining the acceptance and use of infomediary4,
and effects of infomediary on information search were
identified in [25], based on UTAUT. Results of a survey of
650 Chinese university students show that Performance
Expectancy and Social Influence have positive influences on
user Intention to Use infomediary; User Intention has a
positive influence on Use of infomediary; and Facilitating
Condition has a positive influence on Use of infomediary. The
study evidences that UTAUT model is applicable to measure
factors that influence the success of Infomediaries.
Using UTAUT, ICT usage by academic staff in Nigerian
public universities was examined [26]. Results show that
Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy and Facilitating
Condition have a significant positive influence and impact on
the Behavioral Intention to accept and use ICT, by the
university academic staff. However the findings show that
Effort Expectancy is the most influential UTAUT construct.
Also, validity of the UTAUT model was examined by [27]
in Nigeria, and confirmed its validity in developing countries
in the context of educational technologies. Findings of [27]
show that the four constructs of UTAUT have significant
positive influence and impact on the Behavioral Intention to
accept and Use ICT by university academic staff. Furthermore,
EE and SI are found to be the most influential predictors of
acceptance of ICT and Use among the four constructs of
UTAUT. The greatest barriers are time and technical support
for staff.
Amended version of UTAUT proposed by [28] was used to
determine factors influencing e-government services adoption
and acceptance in Pakistan. Results show that the factors
influencing the adoption of e-government services in Pakistan
are related to Ease of Use, Usefulness, Social Influence,
Technological Issues, lack of Awareness, Data Privacy, and
Trust.
Using UTAUT, adoption of established and emerging
information technology in higher education classrooms was
examined in [29]. Findings suggest that in the context of
instructors’ Use of technology for classroom purposes, the
most important antecedents are Performance Expectancy,
Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Habit with more
complex effects when Gender is added as moderating factor.
Findings specifically indicated that the relationship between
Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy on Intention
to Use classroom IT was stronger for males, while the
relationship between Social Influence and Usage was stronger
for females. In a university setting, female professors may be
more likely to succumb to pressure to use Blackboard or other
social networking technology than men, particularly if
promoted by their peers and supervisors.
4
Infomediaries are intermediaries that aggregate information from
multiple electronic commerce retailers and provide services of searching and
comparison for Internet customers [25]
D. Systematic Review of UTAUT citations (Meta-Analysis)
The originating article of the Unified Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology (UTAUT) has been cited by a large
number of studies. However, a detailed examination of such
citations by [30], [31] revealed that only small proportion
(43articles) of these citations actually utilized the theory or its
constructs in their empirical research for examining IS/IT
related issues [30], [31].
Findings of meta-analysis conducted by [30] reveal the
underperformance of theory in subsequent studies in
comparison to the performance of UTAUT reported in the
originating article (e.g. number of empirical studies that
utilized UTAUT were based on relatively very small sample
size, rather than ignoring the effect of moderating variables
which might be distorting the actual performance of the
theory.)
Findings of [30] ensure findings reported by [31] which
raised number of arguments: (1) The majority of articles that
cited UTAUT have done so as a basis for supporting an
argument, or for criticizing the theory, rather than actually
using the theory; (2) Many studies reported as using UTAUT
actually made only partial use of it, often utilizing only a small
number of constructs; (3) A number of citing articles made use
of UTAUT with all constructs but without considering the use
of moderating factors; and (4) There appears to be an
increasing trend of using external variables and external
theories together with UTAUT.
In [32], based on 37 selected empirical studies, a meta-
analysis was conducted in order to harmonize the empirical
evidence on UTAUT. Findings confirm initial findings of [1].
Amongst the five constructs of UTAUT, only the relationship
between PE and BI is strong while others are slightly weak but
significant. Also the relationship between BI and UB is also
reliable while the relationship between FC and UB is found to
be fairly less than desired.
Although these efforts regarding UTAUT contribute to
literature, there still number of contributions regarding
development of original model even after a decade since
UTAUT was first introduced.
IV. NEW CONSTRUCTS
This section reviews research efforts contributing new
constructs to UTAUT.
UTAUT was extended in [33] by adding Perceived
Playfulness and Self-management of learning for the mobile
learning (m-learning) context. Perceived Playfulness is defined
as a state of mind that includes three dimensions: the extent to
which the individual (1) perceives that his or her attention is
focused on the interaction with the m-learning (ie,
concentration); (2) is curious during the interaction (ie,
curiosity); and (3) finds the interaction intrinsically enjoyable
or interesting (ie, Enjoyment) [33]. Self-management of
7
learning is defined as the extent to which an individual feels he
or she is self-disciplined and can engage in autonomous
learning [34].5
Furthermore, the model was validated by [33] in m-learning
context in Taiwan. Age and Gender differences of 330
respondents were examined in [33]. Results indicate that
Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence,
Perceived Playfulness, and Self-management of learning were
all significant determinants of Behavioral Intention to Use m-
learning. Also results of [33] indicate that Age differences
moderate the effects of Effort Expectancy and Social Influence
on m-learning Use Intention, and that Gender differences
moderate the effects of Social Influence and Self-management
of learning on m-learning Use Intention.
A theoretical modification of UTAUT was proposed by
[35]. As antecedent factors, Management Effectiveness (refers
to characteristics that deal with organizational issues and
management actions on the staff within organizations [36]) and
Program Effectiveness (refers to the characteristics that deal
with the services or programs provided by the organizations
[36]) constructs6, towards user acceptance of Telecentre were
proposed.
Based on the Service Oriented Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (SOUTAUT), which
explains 57% of variance towards acceptance and use of e-
library services, [37] explored adoption of Information
Communication Technology (ICT) services in libraries in
Uganda. The focus of [37] was on four independent constructs
of Performance Expectance, Relevance, Social Influence and
Facilitating Conditions; the dependent variable of Behavior
Intentions, Usage Behavior and Expected Benefits and
moderator variables of Gender, Age, Experience and
Awareness as the construct affect e-library services acceptance
in university communities. Results of [37] show that
Relevance and Social Influence have significant effects on
Intentions to Use e-library services in Uganda. Results indicate
that, in the context of e-library services, Social Influence
construct was found to be one of the driving forces of
Behavior Intentions to Use.
Another theoretical modification of UTAUT was proposed
by [38] specifically with regards to Nigerian Factors towards
user adoption of e-commerce in Nigeria. Nigerian Factors
proposed by [38] are: Public Education and Awareness,
Culture/Language, Cost, Power Supply, Government
Regulations and Legal Issues, Accessibility, Trust/Security,
and Reliability.
To investigate the factors and determinants of internet
banking adoption in Malaysia, a new construct, Trust, was
proposed by [39] besides other UTAUT’s constructs. Results
showed that Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy,
Social Influence, Facilitating Condition and Trust were
5
Reference [34] as cited in [33]
6
Reference [36] as cited in [35]
positively correlated (and significant) with Behavioral
Intention among respondents. Nevertheless, Demographic
Factors were not influencing the Behavioral Intention towards
internet banking adoption.
UTAUT 2 was introduced by [40] updating original
UTAUT with three variables; Hedonic Motivation, Price
Value, and Habit. Individual Differences—namely, Age,
Gender, and Experience—are hypothesized to moderate the
effects of these constructs on Behavioral Intention and
Technology Use. Examination of UTAUT 2 in Hong Kong
provided substantial improvement in explained variance.
Furthermore, results of [40] confirmed the important roles of
Hedonic Motivation, Price Value, and Habit in influencing
technology use in UTAUT 2, which is tailored to the context
of Mobile internet’s consumer acceptance and use of
technology. Results revealed that the impact of Hedonic
Motivation (e.g., Enjoyment) on Behavioral Intention is
moderated by Age, Gender, and Experience. Also, the effect of
Price Value on Behavioral Intention is moderated by Age and
Gender. Finally, Habit has both direct and mediated effects on
Technology Use, and these effects are moderated by Individual
Differences.
Based on UTAUT, [41] proposed model of telecentres7
acceptance which considers Management Effectiveness and
Program Effectiveness as theoretical constructs along with
original UTAUT’s constructs. Furthermore, this modified
UTAUT based telecentre model also considers Gender and
Age and Ethnicity as moderators. The results of a survey of
203 respondents in six telecentres in Nigeria showed four core
determinants of Performance Expectancy, Social Influence,
Management Effectiveness and Program Effectiveness
significantly influence intention towards telecentre acceptance.
Two core determinants, Behavioral Intention and Facilitating
Conditions, were found to significantly determine User
Acceptance. Gender, Age and Ethnicity were found to
moderate the relationships between the latent variables.
The original UTAUT lacks of considering trust-based and
economy-based constructs, which may results in a limitation of
UTAUT [42]. Thus an extended UTAUT model was proposed
by [42] to explore what affects consumers to adopt mobile
banking, upon diffusion of 3G smart cell phones in
Taiwan. Model proposed by [42] considers Perceived
Credibility, Perceived Financial Cost, Perceived Self-efficacy
constructs along with UTAUT's original constructs. Results of
[42] indicate that Individual Intention to adopt mobile banking
was significantly influenced by Social Influence, Perceived
Financial Cost, Performance Expectancy, and Perceived
Credibility, in their order of influencing strength. The
Behavior was considerably affected by Individual Intention
and Facilitating Conditions. As for moderating effects of
Gender and Age, [42] discovered that Gender significantly
7
Telecentres are physical space that provides public access to information
and communication technology to some members of underserved
communities [41].
8
moderated the effects of Performance Expectancy and
Perceived Financial Cost on Behavioral Intention, and the Age
considerably moderated the effects of Facilitating Conditions
and Perceived Self-efficacy on actual adoption Behavior.
Drawing on both perspectives of UTAUT and Privacy Risk,
user adoption of an emerging mobile service, location-based
services (LBS), was examined by [43]. Results indicated that
Usage Intention is affected by both enablers such as
Performance Expectancy and inhibitors such as Perceived
Risk. Besides four constructs of UTAUT and Perceived Risk,
there exist other enablers such as Satisfaction and inhibitors
such as Switching Cost.
Although, UTAUT's original constructs are used in [44] as a
research framework to examine the factors affecting the
Intention to Use educational (classroom) technology by 517
MBA students in Indian universities, The study contributed to
the body of literature of Technology Acceptance by
decomposing both SI and FC. While SI is decomposed into
Subjective Norms (The person’s perception that most people
who are important to him think he should or should not
perform the behavior in question [44]) and Image (The degree
to which use of an innovation is perceived to enhance one’s
image or status in one’s social system [44]), FC is decomposed
into Facilitating Conditions-Direct (FCD) and Facilitating
Conditions–Support (FCS). Results reveal that Behavioral
Intention was primarily predicted to a larger extent by Ease of
Use and Subjective Norm while Perceived Usefulness, Image,
Facilitating Conditions Support and Facilitating Conditions
Direct had a lesser effect on it.
Upon investigation of factors influence E-Health
Acceptance in Thai government hospitals, IT Knowledge was
proposed by [45] as a new UTAUT construct. Results indicate
that Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social
Influence, Facilitating Conditions, and IT Knowledge are
significant. Although Age and Gender are not significant,
Experience and Voluntariness of Use are Significant.
Appendix I shows summary of new Constructs proposed in
UTAUT literature. Contributions to UTAUT regarding new
moderators will be addressed in the next section.
V. MODERATING FACTORS
This section reviews research efforts contributing new
moderators to UTAUT.
Based on UTAUT, 3G mobile telecommunication services
acceptance and use was examined in Taiwan by [46] taking
into consideration Education as a new moderator along with
original UTAUT’s moderators. The theoretical modification of
UTAUT proposed by [35] accounts for new moderators:
Ethnicity, and Location.
While examining acceptance and use of e-library services in
Uganda using SOUTAUT, the moderating effect of Awareness
(The degree an individual knows the existence of something,
and its availability for his/her use [37])8 was taken into
consideration by [37]. Results show that the effects of Social
influence and Relevance on Behavior Intention to Use
electronic library services are moderated by Gender, Age,
Experience and Awareness such that it is more salient to
younger women for Social Influence and experienced males
for Relevance construct. Also, the effect of Facilitating
Conditions on usage is moderated by Age, Experience and
Awareness.
A theoretically adapted version of the UTAUT was
presented in [47] to assess the users’ acceptance and
technology adoption of specific e-Trial Systems modules of
the electronic Primary Care Research Network (ePCRN)
within the framework of Clinical Trial Management Systems
(CTMS). In [47], new moderating factors for the model were
introduced in the context of validating an eligibility criteria
tool for primary care and community-based clinical research.
These moderating factors include the following dimensions
[47]:
- Individual Factors dimension condensed the four original
UTAUT moderators (age, gender, experience level, and
voluntariness to use the system) under one dimension. It also
added (speciality) to see if it would make any difference.
- Anxiety dimension (Individual’s psychological and/or
habitual readiness to adapt change).
- Adaption Timeline dimension (allowing enough time for an
individual to completely absorb change).
Another theoretical modification of UTAUT proposed by
[38] towards user adoption of e-commerce in Nigeria,
considers Income and Education as new moderators besides
original UTAUT’s moderators.
A UTAUT based open access adoption model proposed by
[17], considers Awareness and Position (Rank) of the
researchers as new moderators along with original UTAUT’s
moderators (Voluntariness was dropped as a moderator in this
respect because it is only relevant when technology usage is
mandatory). Results reveal that Age, Experience, Gender and
Position (Rank) of the researchers have been established as
important moderators. In addition to its moderating effects,
Age was also established to directly affect both researchers’
Behavioral Intention and Usage of open access, while
Awareness was found to have an effect only on the latter.
The market acceptance of Future Internet ultra-large-scale
(ULS) solutions was examined by [19] using UTAUT. The
effects of PE, EE, SI, Self-efficacy, FC, Anxiety, and Attitude
on Behavioral Intention and Use are examined. Furthermore,
moderators of Gender, Age, Country, Industry, and
Occupation are considered. Results show that all of UTAUT
relations are supported except for the moderating effect of Age
and Industry.
8
Reference [45] as cited in [37]
9
Appendix II shows summary of new moderating factors
proposed in UTAUT literature. Contributions to UTAUT
regarding extension and integration with other models and
theories will be addressed in the next section.
VI. EXTENSION AND INTEGRATION WITH OTHER MODELS
In this section, research efforts contributing to UTAUT
regarding extension and integration with other models and
theories will be discussed.
A. Model Extension
In an attempt to link UTAUT constructs to related
Technology Acceptance Model constructs, [48] investigates
the acceptance and usage of ICT by the University of Port
Harcourt academic staff, using UTAUT and other TAM
constructs. Results of [48] show that the most influential
UTAUT construct is Effort Expectancy (EE), which is related
to Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU). The most influential
construct outside UTAUT model is Attitudes towards Use of
technology. The paper certifies that Anxiety about ICT does
have an impact on the academicians. The study confirms the
validity of the UTAUT model in the field situation of a
developing country’s educational system. The study also
certifies that some of the academicians are still having the fear
of using ICT for their teaching and learning.
In the same manner, the two theories UTAUT and TAM are
compared by [49] in prediction of behavior and intensity of
Internet usage among 122 employees of BKCU Kalimantan
(Credit Union) Indonesia, including identifying the most
dominant perceptions that influence decisions to adopt the
internet. ICT types examined are the mobile phones, Personal
Computers and the Internet. Results of [49] show that UTAUT
outperformed TAM. Highest discriminating power is reported
to UTAUT variables; internet Anxiety and internet Self-
efficacy. Internet Usage is lower compared with personal
computers and mobile phones among employees of the credit
union. The decision of internet adoption is dominantly
influenced by the perceptions about internet, especially
internet Anxiety, internet Self-efficacy, and Personal
Innovativeness.
In [50], relationship between constituent components of
UTAUT has been studied with regard to the acceptance of new
technology of Electro-Slag Remelting (ESR) in Esfarayen
Steel Industry Complex using FUZZY DEMATEL Technique.
FUZZY DEMATEL technique was used by [50] to identify
key success factors of UTAUT. Diagram of the factors was
obtained by [50], and factors were placed in two groups, the
cause group including PE and EE and the effect group
including SI, FC, and Voluntarines of use. The factors of cause
group are called ―key success factors‖. As claimed by [50],
concentrating on these key success factors can settle facing
problems and restrictions with relation to the acceptance of
new technologies by the users.
Fig. 2. Comprehensive e-business quality model based on UTAUT.
Source: [Cody-Allen and Kishore 2006], pp. 86.
B. Model Integration with other models
A comprehensive model was proposed by [51] of
quality based on UTAUT in the context of e-business
systems. This proposed model brings together existing
quality constructs, satisfaction constructs, technology
acceptance mechanisms, and trust literature, in order to
tie all of these research streams together as antecedents
for intention to use and usage of e-business systems.
Thus, E-business quality model (proposed model) extends
the UTAUT with E-quality, Trust, and Satisfaction
constructs as shown in Fig 2.
E-business quality model considers UTAUT constructs (PE,
EE, Intension to Use, and Use), while FC, and SI are dropped.
E-business quality model considers Trust Constructs which
includes Trusting Beliefs which is determined by Ability,
Integrity, and Benevolence. Trusting Beliefs are proposed in
E-business quality model as direct determinants to both PE and
Intension to Use. Furthermore, E-business quality model
considers Satisfaction Constructs (Information Satisfaction and
System Satisfaction) as direct determinants of UTAUT
constructs. Mainly, Information Satisfaction is considered
direct determinant of PE, while System Satisfaction is
considered direct determinant of EE. Finally, E-business
quality model considers Quality Constructs (Information
Quality and System Quality) as direct determinants of
Satisfaction Constructs. Mainly, Information Quality is
considered direct determinant of both Information Satisfaction
10
and Ability, while System Quality is considered direct
determinant of both System Satisfaction and Integrity.
A further contribution to Technology Acceptance literature
is Individual-Technology-Organization- Environment (I-TOE)
as suggested by [52] by integrating UTAUT 2 with
Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) paradigm.
Furthermore, the framework was complemented with new
variables of technology risk, technology task fit, organization
readiness and top management commitment.
Fig 3 illustrates I-TOE Conceptual Framework of CAATTs
Adoption based on both UTAUT and TOE paradigm.
Substantial contribution of [52] is discrimination between
Individual perspective in Acceptance (which is represented by
UTAUT2), and Organizational perspective (which is
represented by TOE). Organizational perspective includes
Technological Influence (Technology Cost-benefit,
Technology risk, and Technology-Task Fit), Organizational
Influence (Top Management Support, Organization's
Readiness, and organization size), and Environmental
Influence (Technology Environment Complexity).
The new paradigm of I-TOE was used by [52] to investigate
the acceptance of CAATTs in audit firms. Computer-Assisted-
Auditing Techniques and Tools (CAATTs) are audit
technologies that allow IT audit work to be performed
efficiently, effectively and reduce audit time.I-TOE framework
contributes to professional audit firms that need to measure
CAATTs acceptance for the advancement of audit profession.

Fig. 3. I-TOE Conceptual Framework of CAATTs Adoption.
Source: [Rosli et al 2012], pp. 8.
In summary, UTAUT originating article [1] has been cited
by a large number of studies. However, Meta-analysis
conducted by [30] and [31] of these studies revealed that only
small proportion of them actually utilized UTAUT or its
constructs in their empirical research.
VII. CONCLUSION
This paper aims to review research efforts substantial
contribution to IT adoption literature regarding UTAUT
validation and development during a decade since UTAUT
was first introduced by [1].
Research efforts contributing to UTAUT development are
discussed in this paper.
Contribution of this paper to body of literature is threefold.
First, theoretical foundation of UTAUT as proposed by [1].
Second, review and classification of research efforts concerned
with UTAUT validation; replication, cross-cultural validation,
systematic review, and validation of full version of UTAUT.
Third, discrimination between three major categories of
research efforts contribution; proposing new constructs,
proposing new moderating factors, proposing an extension to
another models and theories.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank all those individuals who
assisted in this study, especially my wife Dr. Marwa Rabie,
and Prof. Ghada ElKhayat (Conference Chair) for her fruitful
comments. Anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft of this
paper were also most helpful. The cooperation of all these
individuals is most appreciated
11
REFERENCES
[1] V. Venkatesh, M. Morris, G. Davis, and F. Davis, ―User Acceptance Of
Information Technology: Toward A Unified View,‖ MIS Quarterly, vol.
27, no. 3, pp. 425-478, 2003.
[2] P. Legris, J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, ―Why Do People Use
Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology
Acceptance Model,‖ Information & Management, vol. 40, pp. 191-204,
2003.
[3] B. Wixom, and P. Todd, ―A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction
and Technology Acceptance,‖ Information Systems Research, vol. 16,
no. 1, pp. 85-102, 2005.
[4] P. Chau, ―An Empirical Assessment of A Modified Technology
Acceptance Model,‖ Journal of Management Information Systems, vol.
13, no. 2, pp. 185-204, 1996.
[5] F. Davis, R. Bagozzi, and P. Warshaw, ―User Acceptance Of Computer
Technology: A Comparison Of Two Theoretical Models,‖ Management
Science, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 982-1003, 1989.
[6] F. Davis, D., R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, ―Extrinsic and Intrinsic
Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace,‖ Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, vol. 22, no. 14, pp. 1111- 1132, 1992.
[7] R. Thompson, C. Higgins, and J. Howell, ―Personal Computing: Toward
Conceptual Model of Utilization,‖ MIS Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
125-143, 1991.
[8] G. Moore, and I. Benbasat, ―Development of an Instrument to Measure
The Perceptions of Adopting an Innovation Technology Innovation,‖
Information Systems Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 192-222, 1991.
[9] D. Compeau, C. Higgins, and S. Huff, ―Social Cognitive Theory And
Individual Reactions To Computing Technology: A Longitudinal
Study,‖ MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 145-158, 1999.
[10] Y. Malhotra, and D. F. Galletta, ―A Multidimensional Commitment
Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,‖ Journal
Of Management Information Systems, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 117-151, 2005.
[11] K. Mathieson, ―Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology
Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior,‖ Information
Systems Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 173-191, 1991.
[12] S. Taylor, and P. Todd, ―Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior
Experience,‖ MIS Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 561-570, 1995.
[13] H. Yang, and Y. Yoo, ―It’s All about Attitude: Revisiting The
Technology Acceptance Model,‖ Decision Support Systems, vol. 38, pp.
19-31, 2004.
[14] Thanaporn Sundaravej, ―Empirical Validation of Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology Model,‖ Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, vol. 13, no.1, pp. 5–27, 2004.
[15] Mark, J. Moran, ―College Student’s Acceptance of Tablet Personal
Computers: A Modification of The Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology Model,‖ published PhD, Capella University, 2006.
[16] Mohammad I. Ahmad, ―Incorporating Technology Acceptance into IT
investment decisions: An exploratory study in Arab Republic of Egypt,‖
in Proc. of First International Conference on Computing and
Informatics (ICCI'12), Cairo, Egypt, December 11-12, 2012.
[17] Frankwell W. Dulle, and M.K. Minishi-Majanja, ―The suitability of the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model
in open access adoption studies,‖ Information Development, vol. 27,
no.1, pp. 32–45, 2011.
[18] Fatema Akbar, ―What Affects Students’ Acceptance and Use of
Technology?,‖ Dietrich College Honors Theses, Paper 179, 2013.
[19] Maira Lescevica, Egils Ginters, Riccardo Mazza, ―Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) for Market Analysis of
FP7 CHOReOS Products,‖ Procedia Computer Sciencet, vol. 26, pp.
51–68, 2013.
[20] Lidia Oshlyansky, Paul Cairns, and Harold Thimbleby, ―Validating the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) tool
cross-culturally,‖ in Proc. of the 21st British Computer Society HCI
Group Conference, Lancaster University, UK, 3-7 September 2007.
[21] S. J. Yoo, and Wen-hao D. Huang, ―Comparison of Web 2.0
Technology Acceptance Level based on Cultural Differences,‖
Educational Technology & Society , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 241–252, 2011.
[22] Aytaç Göğüş, Nicolae Nistor, and Richard W. Riley, ―Educational
Technology Acceptance across Cultures: A Validation of The Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology in The Context of Turkish
 National Culture,‖ The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 394–408, October 2012.
[23] Said S. Al-Gahtani, Geoffrey S. Hubona, Jijie Wang, ―Information
technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the acceptance and use of
IT,‖ Information & Management, vol. 44, pp. 681–691, 2007.
[24] Nicolae Nistor, Thomas Lerche, Armin Weinberger, Ciprian Ceobanu
and Oliver Heymann, ―Towards the Integration of Culture into the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology,‖ British Journal
of Educational Technology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 36-55, 2014.
[25] Weiwei Shi, Dong Cheng, ―An Empirical Research on Infomediaries
Based on Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT),‖ in Proc. of the Ninth West Lake International Conference
on Small and Medium Business (WLICSMB), pp. 677-682, 2008.
[26] N. D. Oye, A. Noorminshah, NorZairah Ab. Rahim, ―Examining the
Effect of Technology Acceptance Model on ICT Usage in Nigerian
Tertiary Institutions,‖ Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and
Information Sciences, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 533-545, October 2011.
[27] Oye N. D., N. A. Iahad, and N. Ab. Rahim, ―The History of
UTAUT Model and its Impact on ICT Acceptance and Usage by
Academicians,‖ Education and Information Technologies, vol.
19, no. 1, pp. 251-270, March 2014.
[28] Muhammad Ovais Ahmad, Jouni Markkula, and Markku Oivo,
―Influencing Factors in E-Government Services Adoption of Pakistan,‖
European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on
Information Systems, Munich, Germany, 7-8 June 2012, pp. 118-133.
[29] Carmen C. Lewis, Cherie E. Fretwell, Jim Ryan and James B. Parham,
―Faculty Use of Established and Emerging Technologies in Higher
Education: A Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
Perspective,‖ International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 2, no. 2,
pp.22-34, 2013.
[30] Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Nripendra P. Rana1, Hsin Chen, and Michael D.
Williams, ―A Meta-analysis of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (UTAUT),‖ IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology, vol. 366, pp. 155-170, 2011.
[31] Michael D. Williams, Nripendra P. Rana, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Banita
Lal, ―Is UTAUT Really Used or Just Cited for the Sake of it? A
Systematic Review of Citations of UTAUT’s Originating Article,‖
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 10-6-2011,
Paper 231, pp.1-12, 2011.
[32] Ayankunle Adegbite Taiwo, and Alan G. Downe, ―The Theory of User
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): A Meta-Analytic Review
of Empirical Findings,‖ Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information
Technology, vol. 49, no. 1, pp.48-58, 2013.
[33] Yi-Shun Wang, Ming-Cheng Wu and Hsiu-Yuan Wang, ―Investigating
the Determinants and Age and Gender Differences in the Acceptance of
Mobile learning,‖ British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 40,
no. 1, pp. 92-118, 2009.
[34] P. J. Smith, K. L. Murphy, and S. E. Mahoney, ―Towards identifying
factors underlying readiness for online learning: an exploratory study,‖
Distance Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 57–67, 2003.
[35] L. Abdulwahab and Zulkhairi Md Dahalin, ―A Conceptual Model of
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
Modification with Management Effectiveness and Program
Effectiveness in Context of Telecentre,‖ African Scientist, vol. 11, no. 4,
pp. 267–275, 2010.
[36] A. Balduck, and M. Buelen, ―A Two Level Competing Values
Framework to Measuring Non-profit Organizational Effectiveness,‖
Vleric Leuven Gent school Working Paper Series, 2008/19, 2008.
[37] Prisca Tibenderana, Patrick Ogao, J. Ikoja-Odongo and James
Wokadala, ―Measuring Levels of End-Users’ Acceptance and Use of
Hybrid Library Services,‖ International Journal of Education and
Development using Information and Communication Technology
IJEDICT, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 33-54, 2010.
[38] S.C. Chiemeke, and A. E. Evwiekpaefe, ―Review A conceptual
Framework of a Modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT) Model with Nigerian Factors in E-commerce
Adoption,‖ Educational Research, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 1719-1726,
December 2011.
[39] Yeoh Sok Foon, and Benjamin Chan Yin Fah, ―Internet Banking
Adoption in Kuala Lumpur: An Application of UTAUT Model,‖
International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 4, pp.
161-167, 2011.
12
[40] V. Venkatesh, Thong, J. Y. L. and Xu, X., ―Consumer Acceptance and
Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology,‖ MIS Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, pp.
157-178, 2012.
[41] Abdulwahab Lawan, ―A Modification of The Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) From Users’ Perspectives
of Telecentre in Nigeria,‖ PhD Thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 2012.
[42] Chian-Son Yu, ―Factors Affecting Individuals to Adopt Mobile
Banking: Empirical Evidence from the UTAUT Model,‖ Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.104-121, 2012.
[43] Tao Zhou, ―Examining Location-Based Services Usage from The
Perspectives of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
and Privacy Risk,‖ Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 13,
no. 2, pp.135-144, 2012.
[44] Javaid Akhtar, Gokulnanda Patel, and Nuzhat Khan, ―Technology
Adoption in Management Classroom Learning,‖ International Journal
of Management & Information Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp.1110-1124,
2013.
[45] Sumalee Krueklai, Supaporn Kiattisin and Adisorn Leelasantitham,
―Analysis of Factor Affecting in Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology (UTAUT) e-healthcare of government hospitals in
Thailand,‖ in proc. of ISS & MLB, September 24-26, 2013, pp.443-451,
2013.
[46] Yu-LungWu , Yu-Hui Tao, Pei-Chi Yang, ―The use of unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology to confer the behavioral model of 3G
mobile telecommunication users,‖ Journal of Statistics & Management
Systems, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 919–949, 2008.
[47] S. Nicholson, ―A Conceptual Framework for the Holistic Measurement
and Cumulative Evaluation of Library Services,‖ Journal of
Documentation, vol. 60, pp. 164-182, 2004.
[48] N. D. Oye, N. A. Iahad, and N. Ab.Rahim, ― Acceptance and Usage of
ICT by University Academicians Using UTAUT Model: A Case Study
of University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria,‖ Journal of Emerging Trends in
Computing and Information Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.81-89, 2012.
[49] Aviarini Indrati, Edi Minaji, Sugiharti Binastuti, and Philipus Dwi
Raharjo, ―Comparation of Model Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use Technology (UTAUT) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
for Internet Adoption of Credit Union Staff,‖ in proc. of The First
International Credit Union Conference on Social Micro Finance and
Community Development, BKCU Kalimantan - Gunadarma University,
pp.64-69, 2014.
[50] Mojtaba Javidnia, Somaye Nasiri, and Jamshid kiani far, ―Identifying
factors affecting acceptance of new technology in the industry using
hybrid model of UTAUT and FUZZY DEMATEL,‖ Management
Science Letters, pp. 2383–2392, 2012.
[51] Erin Cody-Allen, and Rajiv Kishore, 2006, ―An Extension of the
UTAUT Model with E-Quality, Trust, and Satisfaction Constructs,‖ in
proc. of SIGMIS-CPR’06, April 13–15, 2006, Claremont, California,
USA, pp.82-98, 2006.
[52] Khairina Rosli, Paul H.P. Yeow, and Eu-Gene Siew, ―Factors
Influencing Audit Technology Acceptance by Audit Firms: A New I-
TOE Adoption Framework‖, Journal of Accounting and Auditing:
Research & Practice, vol. 2012, 2012.
 APPENDIX I APPENDIX II

New Constructs Contributing to UTAUT New Moderating Factors Contributing to UTAUT

New Constructs Considered in Significance New Moderators Considered in effect

Age (as a main construct) [17] Significant Adaption Timeline [47] N/A
[35], [14], [15], [37] Has a moderating effect
Significant, while in
[20], [21], [22], Awareness
Anxiety [15], [18] is Not [17] Direct Determinant
[48], [18], [24],
Significant
[49]
Country [19] Has a moderating effect
[14], [15], [17], Significant, while in
Attitude [20], [21], [48], [14] is Not [46] Has a moderating effect
[18] Significant Education
[38] N/A
Awareness [17] Significant
Educational Level [49] Has a moderating effect
Computer Literacy [22] Not Significant
[35] N/A
E-quality [51] N/A Ethnicity
Expected Benefits [41] Has a moderating effect
[37] Dependant Variable
(Dependent Variable)
Field [49] Has a moderating effect
Facilitating conditions –
[44] Not Significant Geographic
support (FCS) [22], [24] Has a moderating effect
Facilitating conditions- Location
[44] Significant Has a moderating effect,
Direct (FCD) Hofested's Cultural [21], [22],
while its effect is limited in
Habit [40], [29] Significant Dimensions [24]
[22]
Hedonic Motivation [40], [29] Significant Income [38] N/A
IT Knowledge [45] Significant
Individual
Management Factors (age,
[35], [41] Significant
Effectiveness gender, experience
Nigerian Factors (Public [47] N/A
level, speciality,
Education/ Awareness, and voluntariness
Culture/ Language, Cost, to use the system)
Power Supply, reliability [38] N/A
Government Regulation/ Industry [19] Has no moderating effect
Legal Issues, Trust/
Security, Accessibility) Location [35] N/A
Perceived Credibility [42] Significant Occupation [19] Has a moderating effect
Perceived Financial Cost [42] Significant Position (Rank) [49], [17] Has a moderating effect
Perceived Playfulness [33] Significant Profession [22], [24] Has a moderating effect
Perceived Risk [43] Significant Training [49] Has a moderating effect
Perceived Self-efficacy [42] Not Significant

Price Value [40] Significant

Privacy concern [43] Not Significant

Program Effectiveness [35], [41] Significant

Relevance [37] Significant

Satisfaction [51] N/A

[14], [15], [20], Significant while in
Self-efficacy [48], [17], [18], [17], [18] is Not
[49] Significant
Self-management [33] Significant

Trust [51], [39], [43] Significant

Voluntarines of Use (as a
[50] Significant
main construct)

13

View publication stats