SETTINGS AND

PARTICIPANTS
We sampled for heterogeneity across :
1. technologies
2. organizations
3. industries
4. business functions
And nature of use :
voluntary vs. mandatory

1
SETTINGS AND
PARTICIPANTS

2
SETTINGS AND
PARTICIPANTS
Measuring constructs from all eight models was
administered at three different points in time:
- T1:post-training
- T2:one month after implementation
- T3:three month after implementation

3
MEASUREMENT
 A questionnaire was created with items
validated in prior research.
 Behavioral intention to use the system was
measured using a three-item scale.
 Seven point scales were used for all of the
aforementioned constructs’
measurement.
 Actual usage behavior was measured as
duration of use via system logs.

4
RESULTS - USING PARTIAL
LEAST SQUARES (PLS)

5
RESULTS - USING PARTIAL
LEAST SQUARES (PLS)
Key findings :
1. Variance in intention explained ranging from 17
percent to 42 percent.
2. Constructs related to social influence were
more significant in the Mandatory settings .
3. Some determinants going from significant to
nonsignificant with increasing experience.

6
RESULTS - USING PARTIAL
LEAST SQUARES (PLS)
The data were pooled across studies and time
periods.
1. Voluntariness
2. Gender
3. Age
4. Experience
Pooling the data across the three points of
measurement
Time1+Time2+Time3 = 215x3=
645(N)
7
RESULTS - USING PARTIAL
LEAST SQUARES (PLS)
There is an increase
in the variance
explained in the
case of TAM2

8
RESULTS - USING PARTIAL
LEAST SQUARES (PLS)
1. With the exception of MM and SCT, the
predictive validity of the models increased
after including the moderating variables.

2. The extensions to the various models

mostly enhance the predictive validity of the
various models beyond the original
specifications.

9
RESULTS - USING PARTIAL
LEAST SQUARES (PLS)
1. There was at least one construct that was
significant in all time periods.
2. Several other constructs were initially
significant, but then became nonsignificant
over time.
3. The voluntary vs. mandatory context did have
an influence on the significance of constructs
related to social influence
4. Unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology(UTAUT)
10
 THE UTAUT RESEARCH
MODEL

Direct Indirect Key

Determinants Determinants moderators

• Performance • Self-efficacy • Gender

expectancy • Anxiety • Age
• Effort • Attitude toward • Voluntariness 47
UTAUT RESEARCH MODEL

12
PERFORMANCE
EXPECTANCY
• Definition
The degree to which an individual believes that using the
system will help him or her to attain gains in job
performance.
Construct Source Model
TAM/TAM2/C-TAM-
Perceived Usefulness
TPB
Extrinsic Motivation MM
Job-fit MPCU
Relative Advantage IDT
Outcome Expectations SCT 13
TABLE 9. FIVE CONSTRUCTS
OF PERFORMANCE
EXPECTANCY

14
PERFORMANCE
EXPECTANCY
It has two moderating variables with
gender and age.
• Gender:
It has a more significant effect on men.
• Age:
Stronger for Younger workers.

15
 PERFORMANCE
EXPECTANCY
H1 :
The influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention
will be
Moderated by
1. Gender
2. Age

Such that the effect will be stronger for

3. men
4. particularly younger men

16
EFFORT EXPECTANCY
• Definition
The degree of ease of associated with the use of
system

Construct Source Model

Perceived ease of use TAM/TAM2
Complexity MPCU
Ease of use IDT

17
TABLE 10. THREE OF
EFFORT EXPECTANCY

18
EFFORT EXPECTANCY
It has three moderating variables with
gender, age and experience.
• Gender:
It has a more significant effect on women.
• Age:
It is significant by older worker.
• Experience:
Person has few experience with system.

19
EFFORT EXPECTANCY

H2 :
The influence of effort expectancy on behavioral intention will
be
Moderated by
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Experience

Such that the effect will be stronger for

4. women
5. particularly older workers
6. particularly at the early stages of experience

20
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
• Definition :
The degree to which an individual perceives that
important others believe he or she should use the new
system.
Construct Source Model

TRA, TAM2, TPB/DTPB

Subjective Norm
and C-TAM-TPB

Social Factors MPCU

Image IDT

21
22
SOCIAL INFLUENCE

T1 T2 T3

In Voluntary
Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Nonsignificant
Settings

In Mandatory
Significant Significant Nonsignificant
Settings

59
 Experience and Voluntariness of use are moderating

variables.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
• Gender :
Women tend to be more salient when forming an
intension to use technology, with the effect declining with
experience.
• Age :
Older workers are more likely to place increased salience
on social influences, with the effect declining with
experience.

 Gender and Age are moderating

variables 61
SOCIAL INFLUENCE

H3 :
The influence of social influence on behavioral intention will
be
Moderated by
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Voluntariness
4. Experience

Such that the effect will be stronger for

5. women
6. particularly older women
7. particularly in mandatory settings in the early stages of
experience 62
FACILITATING CONDITIONS
• Definition :
The degree to which an individual believes that an
organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support
use of the system.

Construct Source Model

Perceived behavioral
TPB/DTPB, C-TAM-TPB
control
Facilitating conditions MPCU
Compatibility IDT

63
64
FACILITATING CONDITIONS
Perceived behavioral control
T1 T2 T3

In Voluntary Nonsignifica Nonsignifica

Significant
Settings nt nt
In
Nonsignifica Nonsignifica
Mandatory Significant
nt nt
Settings

65
FACILITATING CONDITIONS
When both performance expectancy constructs
and effort expectancy constructs are present
facilitating conditions becomes non-significant
in predicting intention.

H4a:
Facilitating conditions will not have a significant influence on
behavioral intention.

66
FACILITATING CONDITIONS
• Experience :
The effect will be stronger with increasing experience.
• Age :
Older workers attach more importance to receiving help and
assistance on the job.

 Experience and Age are moderating

variables

67
FACILITATING CONDITIONS

H4b :
The influence of facilitating conditions on usage will be
Moderated by
1. Age
2. Experience

Such that the effect will be stronger for

3. Older workers
4. particularly with increasing experience

68
CONSTRUCTS THEORIZED
NOT TO BE DIRECT
DETERMINANTS OF
INTENTION
1. Self-efficacy
2. Anxiety
3. Attitude toward using technology

69
SELF-EFFICACY AND
ANXIETY
1. Self-efficacy and anxiety have been modeled as
indirect determinants of intention fully mediated
by perceived ease of use

2. We expect self-efficacy and anxiety to behave

similarly, that is , to be distinct from effort
expectancy and to have no direct effect on
intention above and beyond effort expectancy

70
SELF-EFFICACY AND
ANXIETY
H5a:
Computer self-efficacy will not have a significant influence on
behavioral intention.

H5b:
Computer anxiety will not have a significant influence on
behavioral intention.

71
ATTITUDE TOWARD USING
TECHNOLOGY
• Definition :
An individual’s overall affective reaction to using a system.

Construct Source Model

TRA,TPB/DTPB, C-
Attitude toward behavior
TAM-TPB
Intrinsic motivation MM
Affect toward use MPCU
Affect SCT

72
73
ATTITUDE TOWARD USING
TECHNOLOGY

T1 T2 T3
TRA,
TPB/DTPB, Significant Significant Significant
MM

TAM-TPB, Nonsignifica Nonsignifica Nonsignifica

MPCU, SCT nt nt nt

74
ATTITUDE TOWARD USING
TECHNOLOGY
We expect strong relationships in UTAUT
between performance expectancy and intention,
and between effort expectancy and intention
We believe that attitude toward using technology
will not have a direct or interactive influence on
intention.

H5c:
Attitude toward using technology will not have a significant
influence on behavioral intention.

75
BEHAVIORAL INTENTION

Consistent with the underlying theory for all of

the intention models discussed in this paper, we
expect that behavioral intention will have a
significant positive influence on technology
usage.

H6:
Behavioral intention will have a significant influence on usage.

76