5.8 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology acceptance model | 2/2 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_acceptance_model | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T07:12:50.769788+00:00 | kb-cron |
Subjective norm – An individual's perception that other individuals who are important to him/her/them consider if he/she/they could perform a behavior. This was consistent with the theory of reasoned action (TRA). Voluntariness – This was defined by Venkatesh & Davis as "extent to which potential adopters perceive the adoption decision to be non-mandatory". Image – This was defined by Moore & Benbasat as "the degree to which use of an innovation perceived to enhance one's status in one's social system". Job relevance – Venkatesh & Davis defined this as personal perspective on the extent to which the target system is suitable for the job. Output quality – Venkatesh & Davis defined this as personal perception of the system's ability to perform specific tasks. Result demonstrability – The production of tangible results will directly influence the system's usefulness. In an attempt to integrate the main competing user acceptance models, Venkatesh et al. formulated the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). This model was found to outperform each of the individual models (Adjusted R square of 69 percent). UTAUT has been adopted by some recent studies in healthcare. In addition, authors Jun et al. also think that the technology acceptance model is essential to analyze the factors affecting customers’ behavior towards online food delivery services. It is also a widely adopted theoretical model to demonstrate the acceptance of new technology fields. The foundation of TAM is a series of concepts that clarifies and predicts people’s behaviors with their beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intention. In TAM, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, considered general beliefs, play a more vital role than salient beliefs in attitudes toward utilizing a particular technology.
== Alternative models == The MPT model: Independent of TAM, Scherer developed the matching person and technology model in 1986 as part of her National Science Foundation-funded dissertation research. The MPT model is fully described in her 1993 text, "Living in the State of Stuck", now in its 4th edition. The MPT model has accompanying assessment measures used in technology selection and decision-making, as well as outcomes research on differences among technology users, non-users, avoiders, and reluctant users. The HMSAM: TAM has been effective for explaining many kinds of systems use (i.e. e-learning, learning management systems, webportals, etc.) (Fathema, Shannon, Ross, 2015; Fathema, Ross, Witte, 2014). However, TAM is not ideally suited to explain adoption of purely intrinsic or hedonic systems (e.g., online games, music, learning for pleasure). Thus, an alternative model to TAM, called the hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM) was proposed for these kinds of systems by Lowry et al. HMSAM is designed to improve the understanding of hedonic-motivation systems (HMS) adoption. HMS are systems used primarily to fulfill users' intrinsic motivations, such for online gaming, virtual worlds, online shopping, learning/education, online dating, digital music repositories, social networking, only pornography, gamified systems, and for general gamification. Instead of a minor TAM extension, HMSAM is an HMS-specific system acceptance model based on an alternative theoretical perspective, which is in turn grounded in flow-based cognitive absorption (CA). HMSAM may be especially useful in understanding gamification elements of systems use. Extended TAM: Several studies proposed extension of original TAM (Davis, 1989) by adding external variables in it with an aim of exploring the effects of external factors on users' attitude, behavioral intention and actual use of technology. Several factors have been examined so far. For example, perceived self-efficacy, facilitating conditions, and systems quality (Fathema, Shannon, Ross, 2015, Fathema, Ross, Witte, 2014). This model has also been applied in the acceptance of health care technologies.
== Criticisms == TAM has been widely criticised, despite its frequent use, leading the original proposers to attempt to redefine it several times. Criticisms of TAM as a "theory" include its questionable heuristic value, limited explanatory and predictive power, triviality, and lack of any practical value. Benbasat and Barki suggest that TAM "has diverted researchers' attention away from other important research issues and has created an illusion of progress in knowledge accumulation. Furthermore, the independent attempts by several researchers to expand TAM in order to adapt it to the constantly changing IT environments has lead [sic] to a state of theoretical chaos and confusion". In general, TAM focuses on the individual 'user' of a computer, with the concept of 'perceived usefulness', with extension to bring in more and more factors to explain how a user 'perceives' 'usefulness', and ignores the essentially social processes of IS development and implementation, without questioning whether more technology is actually better, and the social consequences of IS use. Lunceford argues that the framework of perceived usefulness and ease of use overlooks other issues, such as cost and structural imperatives that force users into adopting the technology. For a recent analysis and critique of TAM, see Bagozzi. Legris et al. claim that, together, TAM and TAM2 account for only 40% of a technological system's use. Perceived ease of use is less likely to be a determinant of attitude and usage intention according to studies of telemedicine, mobile commerce, and online banking.
== See also ==
== Notes ==
== References ==