Expert answer:Writing Assignment

Solved by verified expert:Read the paper – Venkatesh et al. 2003 MISQ v27n3p425-478.pdf – carefully and summarize it with your own words using the Paper Summary Template at Modules
venkatesh_et_al._2003_misq_v27n3p425_478.pdf

paper_summary_example__2_.doc

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Qarterly
RESEARCH ARTICLE
USER ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY: TOWARD A UNIFIED VIEW^
Abstract
By: Viswanath Venkatesh
Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
Van Munching Hall
College Park, MD 20742
U.S.A.
wenkate@rhsmith.umd.edu
Michael G. Morris
Mcintire School of Commerce
University of Virginia
Monroe Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22903-2493
U.S.A.
mmorrls@virginia.edu
Gordon B. Davis
Carlson School of Management
University of Minnesota
321 19’^ Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
U.S.A.
gdavis@csom.umn.edu
Fred D. Davis
Sam M. Walton College of Business
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701-1201
U.S.A.
fdavis@walton.uark.edu
Cynthia Beath was the accepting senior editor for this
paper.
Information technology (IT) acceptance research
has yielded many competing models, each with
different sets of acceptance determinants. In this
paper, we (1) review user acceptance literature
and discuss eight prominent models, (2) empirically compare the eight models and their extensions, (3) formulate a unified model that integrates
elements across the eight models, and (4) empirically validate the unified model. The eight models
reviewed are the theory of reasoned action, the
technology acceptance model, the motivational
model, the theory of planned behavior, a model
combining the technology acceptance model and
the theory of planned behavior, the model of PC
utilization, the innovation diffusion theory, and the
social cognitive theory. Using data from four
organizations over a six-month period with three
points of measurement, the eight models explained between 17 percent and 53 percent of the
variance in user intentions to use information
technology. Next, a unified model, called the
United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). was formulated, with four core
determinants of intention and usage, and up to
four moderators of key relationships. UTAUT was
then tested using the original data and found to
outperform the eight individual models (adjusted
R^ of 69 percent). UTAUT was then confirmed
with data from two new organizations with similar
results (adjusted f^ of 70 percent). UTAUT thus
provides a useful tool for managers needing to
MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3. pp. 425-478/September 2003
425
Venkatesh et at./User Acceptance of IT
assess the likelihood of success for new technology introductions and helps them understand the
drivers of acceptance in order to proactively design interventions (including training, marketing,
etc.) targeted at populations of users that may be
less inclined to adopt and use new systems. The
paper also makes several recommendations for
future research including developing a deeper
understanding of the dynamic influences studied
here, refining measurement ofthe core constructs
used in UTAUT, and understanding the organizational outcomes associated with new technology
use.
Keywords: Theory of pianned behavior, innovation characteristics, technology acceptance
model, sociai cognitive theory, unified model,
integrated modei
Introduction
The presence of computer and information technologies in today’s organizations has expanded
dramaticaiiy. Some estimates indicate that, since
the 1980s, about 50 percent of all new capital
investment in organizations has been in information technology (Westland and Clark 2000). Yet,
for technologies to improve productivity, they must
be accepted and used by employees in organizations. Explaining user acceptance of new technology is often described as one of the most
mature research areas in the contemporary information systems (IS) literature (e.g , Hu et al.
1999). Research in this area has resulted in
several theoretical models, with roots in information systems, psychology, and sociology, that
routinely explain over 40 percent ofthe variance in
individual intention to use technology (e.g., Davis
et al. 1989; Taylor and Todd 1995b; Venkatesh
and Davis 2000). Researchers are confronted
with a choice among a multitude of models and
find that they must “pick and choose” constructs
across the models, or choose a “favored model”
and largely ignore the contributions from
alternative models. Thus, there is a need for a
review and synthesis in order to progress toward
a unified view of user acceptance.
426
MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
The current work has the following objectives:
(1) To review the extant user acceptance
models: The primary purpose of this review
is to assess the current state of knowledge
with respect to understanding individual
acceptance of new information technologies.
This review identifies eight prominent models
and discusses their similarities and differences. Some authors have previously observed some of the similarities across
models.^ However, our review is the first to
assess similarities and differences across all
eight models, a necessary first step toward
the ultimate goal of the paper: the development of a unified theory of individual acceptance of technology. The review is presented
in the following section.
(2) To empirically compare the eight models:
We conduct a within-subjects, longitudinal
validation and comparison of the eight
models using data from four organizations.
This provides a baseline assessment of the
relative explanatory power of the individual
models against which the unified model can
be compared. The empirical model comparison is presented in the third section.
(3) To formulate the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT):
Based upon conceptual and empirical similarities across models, we formulate a unified
model. The formulation of UTAUT is presented in the fourth section.
(4) To empirically validate UTAUT: An empirical
test of UTAUT on the original data provides
preliminary support for our contention that
UTAUT outperforms each of the eight original
models. UTAUT is then cross-validated using
data from two new organizations. The empirical validation of UTAUT is presented in the
fifth section.
Forexample, Moore and Benbasal (1991) adapted the
perceived usefulness and ease of use items from Davis
et al.’s (1989) TAM to measure relative advantage and
complexity, respectively, in their innovation diffusion
model.
Venkatesh et aL/User Acceptance of IT
t—
•
Individual reactions to
using information
technology
1
1
Intentions to use
information
technology
1
Actual use of
information
technology
Figure 1. Basic Concept Underiying User Acceptance Modeis
Review of Extant User
Acceptance Models
Description of Models
and Constructs
IS research has long studied how and why individuals adopt new information technologies. Within
this broad area of inquiry, there have been several
streams of research. One stream of research
focuses on individual acceptance of technology by
using intention or usage as a dependent variable
(e.g., Compeau and Higgins 1995b; Davis et al.
1989).
Other streams have focused on
implementation success at the organizational level
(Leonard-Barton and Deschamps 1988) and tasktechnology fit (Goodhue 1995; Goodhue and
Thompson 1995), among others. While each of
these streams makes important and unique
contributions to the literature on user acceptance
of information technology, the theoretical models
to be included in the present review, comparison,
and synthesis employ intention and/or usage as
the key dependent variable. The goal here is to
understand usage as the dependent variable. The
role of intention as a predictor of behavior (e.g.,
usage) is critical and has been well-established in
IS and the reference disciplines (see Ajzen 1991;
Sheppard et al. 1988; Taylor and Todd 1995b).
Figure 1 presents the basic conceptual framework
underlying the class of models explaining individual acceptance of information technology that
forms the basis of this research. Our review resulted in the identification of eight key competing
theoretical models. Table 1 describes the eight
1
models and defines their theorized determinants
of intention and/or usage. The models hypothesize between two and seven determinants of
acceptance, for a total of 32 constructs across
the eight models. Table 2 identifies four key
moderating variables (experience, voluntariness,
gender, and age) that have been found to be
significant in conjunction with these models.
Prior Model Tests and
Model Comparisons
There have been many tests of the eight models
but there have only been four studies reporting
empirically-based comparisons of two or more of
the eight models published in the major information systems journals. Table 3 provides a brief
overview of each of the model comparison
studies. Despite the apparent maturity of the research stream, a comprehensive comparison of
the key competing models has not been conducted in a single study. Below, we identify five
limitations of these prior model tests and comparisons, and how we address these limitations in our
work.
Technology studied: The technologies that
have been studied in many of the model
development and comparison studies have
been relatively simple, individual-oriented
information technologies as opposed to more
complex and sophisticated organizational
technologies that are the focus of managerial
concern and of this study.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
All
1
1
0
o
o
to
E
1
.0
o x>
r-
0
CO
3
C
CD
tj
ro
0
E
S
ro
ro
_c
“a
03
0
•o
c
ro
>,
O3
o
O3
H”
(A
E
5
0
CO
0
03
>,
1—
“S
< m '0 -D 0 ai XI O tj TO 0 c 3 "B t/3 Q. •n •2 _ro O) fD ro •§ 3 0 tr ° o 'r-'. d 2 "55 CD Q. ro CM o 0 0 0 to Q. I CO ^ Ji •g >>
•D
5
J
13
1-
E
g
.c
OJ
1-^
5
?
0
13
if
n
2
“(5
If
“Q.
g
X)
< 4— E o Z .>
“C
CO
tn
d
r—
;^
O

c
UJ
0
CO
£
Q.
E
CO
f~
CJ
3
tn
CM”
CM’
d
cn
c
“0
T3
c
CD
c
ro
.9
CJ
‘ ^
CO
ro
0
9^
H
c
3
CD
°.
lent ot
ie” (Di
i’ill wa
ro
Q.
at user
o
ivini
m
(11
a.
0
0″
c
o
/~
>
“S
LJ
c
c
3i. 199:
rform i
etiv
n the proc(
tsel
or pro mot ion;
le aeti
rform j
tal in a
M2onl
hat usi
‘ (Davis
hat usi
nerjob
ro
ntr einforoi
tivity pt
c
al.
be ins
listinol
rmanc
“c i ;
vill wa
0
_2 E
that an
ved job pe
iclude
free c
X)
penceived
at user
AJTPB.
would
p. 321
ion be
0 CD
.^•
apun
M/S Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
“o p ro
SB UJJC
o
lieh a p
< triinsic Moti l_ 0 L' 0 0 JD m peier 1999). •o .2 0 0 "to ro teef lnology adopti <" c CJ3"' T- rstand jnkate ro o a: tional theo ry to and use (s ee al Q. O" CD rr tenets ot tlIIS theoret loal beise. Withiin the informa tion systems diomai, vis et ia!. (1992) 1 applied motiv 0 _i c rinsic Moi Q. ^g d an explanatio behavior :ral st udies have: exa mined motivaljonal theory anc1 ada pted it for s|Decifiiceo ntexts. Valler; (1997) pre sent; fxcelle nt re'^'lew of thefundanrlental C 0 0 TO /chology has E )Up- o c ro o O would ivis 19E 0 lodel (MM) sro c CD A signifiea nt beidy of resea reh ir ported gerleral motiv ation 1 :heor CO JT" .11 to lich a p (0 a. "« O3 1 Motivatioi Q. in 197; CO dely applied t( rs. 5 Q. O o ceived E "M bein a (e who are ngs (e'^alu vior (F•ishi CN" intention i and Davis 200C diverse set o f t f < « O3 C derto better eexplain :ended TAM b;/ iniddit ional predictor ettings (Venkc c r JD o d. exeludes t he at ! eon SI intention plarsin usiy. eluding su ive nc >
0_
“(0
1 r*.
ceived U
o.
at mo
hould
.c
C
AM)
o
k_
“o
ccepitance Mod
o
0
Q.
TAM is tai lored to IS conte xts, i
was designed to prediet inforn”latior 1 teehnologj
epta nee and usagi
the job. Unlike TRA , thefinal e
jptualization o fTAM
0)
cu
t
avii
o
>
pen ception
Ihmk h(
lest ion” (Fi
negati
e targ< 0 Djeetive ^ 1 • ositive ( orming 1 ro 1 Technoto ct tude Tow lavior "(3 pune 428 inil 1 • fundamen tal ar luentiall the. It has bee )d to 1predic' anqe of behav'iors (see Shepipard etal. 1988 fora revi ew). Davis et al. (1989) apiDlied IKA to individuc ceptanee of technothati[he vairianc eexiplained was la eonsistent: with studi t hac ployed TRA in the 1 context of othe r behiaviors. k is one of the most ; of human belhavior. •• 0 LUI ^^M cial p:sychol Hi Drawn froi 1 ••lr 1 UJI re Const ^H Theory ol Rea sone d Acti Ver)katesh et al./User Acceptance of IT 0 CM '0 to ' ^ to CM" d 0 to >
ro
03
0/
0
ro
TO
ro .£
03
0
0
0
Q.
to
to
c
0
CO
ro
CO
0
to
c
o
0
Kip O
[^
0
C)
o
< C TJ 0 >
“o
_2
CO
c
n
1-
«•o
“c
0 ro
X3
c
ll
Q-
CD X
1—
ro
B
a.
B
“Q.
0
TJ
ro
T3
< 0 XJ o .if CD 0 c o .^ ^t >•—
o
.0
>
0
CO
E
c
c/3
±j
“TO
c
ro
0
0
CO
‘
o
o
ro
CQ
0
T3
o
“g f” n
0
c
0
X3
ro
x:
0
O
“g
E
ro
3
Z
0
>
0
a
m
b
x;
a;
0
^>
TJ
0
CO
—
TJ
T-
^
O
0
Q
r—
CO
.S c ro
(0
0 CD
Q.
‘o
c Q.
B
E 0
TJ
o
x:
0
•
1
o
0
0
Q
1.
u 1H- T3 o
a.
_,_:,
T—
a o c
f—
0
c
< Q o xro: n C13 h 0 0 tn "o c 0' CU O 1 jf 0 - I l~ 0 Q. Q E o >
0
X3
C
o
0 o
Q- CJ
c
0 g o
o ro E
E “0 —
sn
T3
H
CO
u
LL.
“5
Q-
o
E
o
5
“AM.
CO
CQ
CL
O
O
OQ 1 –
1-
CD
Q.
1—
it
a:
^— 1—
E
E
o
g
H-
T5
TJ
TD
«t
_0
“5.
ro
TJ
< "2 o TJ ro 5 E o o z0 >
TJ
o
^
D ro 0
.a”
K 0
< CO CO — UJ CO tJ TJ Q. E •D B "a. ro TJ 0 < •a < Q. ro "TO o sz 0 D[0 Tl 0 TJ 0 o_ o 0 O rceiv E g 4— Oi U) c lavi ^ • B rceiv ntrol o c •o 95b, o Tiodel combines the p dictors fived IJ sefulness from M t o r H (Ta>‘lor and To’
“o
eptior
raylor
0
-TAM-
o
.}TJ
lavi
E
rceiv
ntrol
perf ormi
the coni
•n
•
nst
CO
jfceive
tructur
ffieul
. 188
intei
tTod
I•
ease •
RA.
••
•
eontr
s” att
al eo
V)
bject
tn
o
ings.
nding
!rent i
1;Ta5
Dmpo
^ H (=
de var
d to thf
age of
‘; Math
model ist
DTPB
ntieal t
^1-2
predi’
t—
SUJ
wp
reC
I•
;ion arId behavio r in a
een s uccessfull^/ appi
livi’dual aicceptance and I
loqlies (hlarrison et al. 19
‘odd 1 995b). A l’elatei
*lanned Be havio
;tin g inte ntion, DTP B is ic
Bbut similar to 1lAM,
subje etive norm , and
s the underlying beliei
tion cc3ntexts.
bined TAM and TPB’
(1)
perci
vin ral cc
inten
1
} the Cl
ereeivf
al dete
)resenl
ully usi
E
ry of 1Planned B ehavi r(TPB
E
sxtencJed TRA b:/addi
^ioral eontrol. In TPR
orizeci to be an >
D3
X3
“s ^
? 0
o. “o 2
^
1— t~
“c?
C73
TJ
TJ
MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
429
Venkatesh et ai/User
Acceptance
of IT
o
^
0) * O)
3
if)
Q.
^
CO
r^
3
ro • ^
cn -Q
^
r-..
._
•c-
ro
i
CD
0)
o ii
-_
0
£Z
0
i_
0
^ ro ^
III
‘^
0)
‘0
01
(-
CD
5
^•
0
t”
D
S;
n%
c .E
£
0
o
CO
CO
CD
-CJ =
„
0
. 2 CD
“K – C
ED
0
•5
ii
01
c
E
.2
0
-‘-
ro
E
u
Q”S
•Q
0
C
3
(O
0
0
•^
_
ro
o
p
^
O E
c ro
0 x:
.-^
O
CO
c
o
O
cn
c
E 5
a.
CO
E
o
O
c
>
c
_: P
0 ro ”
0
to
i£

_
Q. 0
£ <^ Ii CL ^ iC E o t •— o ro 0 ^ -9 € ro ro CO N Q. 3 o j= = * i 13 05 * 3 0) ro Q. ro 0 Q. ra CD -O 0 . ^ il t "I n •>
0
t 0 T3
g
^
Q. Q.
MIS Quarterly
o
.i c
B CD
O O)
O 0 ro 2!
•- sz
05 * –
3
^
•o
c
0
^
0
c
05 ro
^
o
JZ
-^
II
£ O
I ^
fl
I=
ti
C
•9
ro
^ 8
^
0 c
= . 9 CD
0 !_’ O
a.
P
o 9; CD O)
E Z
£^
S
0
o
3
^
^£
>-
p
t
Vol. 27 No. 3/September
E ^
ro -c
X
CD
(1 to
o; 0
0 .0
‘5) 0
— 0
ro O D)
•53 £
0″
0
O O
P E
0
01
ro — C
ro ro
— x:
0 0 *-
ro * 1 P ro ^ *”‘ Q.
-D P Q. ro c QJ .2 c
s •> ro ^
0> ro *- 01 w 3
X O
Q
^ o ^ B I
0
01
c
ro
430
CO
d 3 ^
(••1
Q0
2 |
>.
58
0
t
IE
o
T-
01
05
t-
2003
c
ro .».-
I 1°
C
>.
ca
^
0
J
^
•>
. ^ ^
.E ro
O
O
E rf ^ ro 3
c to
CO CO
ro i5 ,_
P CD
a
C LL
CD
—.. ->-‘
0
«
O
o cn
0 “^ 0
ra S “c
O
E
o
0
0
«, 2 S5 9 3
0
.2
O
” cn 0 (N
fr ro Q. T2^ _ CO
ro
3
ci
tu
0
Ii
iR 2: ‘ o CD
oi
^
CO
2
CJ
•>
_:
Si
>S^ o . ro
(0 Q.
0
0 -D 5
3 c “TO
-n O D
CD 0)
_3 CL
05
ro
tfl
CD
05
Q.
.9 ~ E
!S2
^ o
CO
.b c
0 .9
£ “to
ro
« g
ro
ro c
01 3
«- ro
o ^ iy
ro
E
o
0 O CN
•D i t ‘ –
ro «_
x: o
c
o
c
o
^ B
CD
o
ro
ro Qi=
cn
Q. c ro
3 o *O 0
CO
c
x:
0
5
«
“”
0
0
0
x:
0
•
*
^ C f l (A
Hi
^^-^
LE
E o i
O) 0
Cl
0 _ro c
p
sat
ore 1
p
CT)
–
0 e
ing
1
0
3
CJ
0
T3
0
CO
CD
•–•
£ P
i: a.
:§ “p – ^
.„ 0 “^
fl5
c
o
O
_•
X cn
0
nov
^ Csl
2J CO
C
0
-r-
0
^
^~
tn
d.
CJ
–
Q
0
-C
It
QJ
05
3
0
2_
>s
“o
1
0
0
XZ
ro f
-•—’
^
3
o
>
LO
<7) t- Q. C31 . _ ' f— * ._ O5 0 O «•— o D) O) i8| O ^ 0 u) T=; o •- - 2 ro ^ (0 o c to o ro CC 3 o £ = "I 1 0 J2 .2 £ "S. Si X3 o ro S* 0 ResuH strabil Comp tibi ca c ro x: CJl CJl o ai C •- - ^ ™ f^ c CO ro ,i t= CD >>
. 1998; Kara
1c 2
S5
^ ° Q.
3
2
ro E
B
I
ro o ro
ro P “S 0
Q
05
1 red id
tivfi
eeal£
ifital 199
0
CJ
CJ
C/)
cteris
u)
ort fo
Klein 1I9«2)
‘e and Benb
c £
*^
O
p:
o
0)’
O)
^
inn
0)
CO
8
0
o
eseni
ould 1
ice. f
1991)
nal
*-•
C_J
ned
divi
CD
O5
—
II dL
cn
o o
s
0
O)
o
~—
a
“^ . . ro
“TO (o ra ” Q . c
ro
lovatio
o
ral 30lS to orgar
to
>
0
–
£
>
ro
Image
Ease
^
ncL
ers 1!
:udy a /ariet
Q
• ^
p
0
CD
?^
.c.
CJ
‘o o
^
•—•
iir
Q)
c^
3 1= o
to
TO
O
.E
o
2O
e LUOJ
1
It
•5-
“> E -C J =
S
o CO a
“*”^ ‘j^s r r
P
i2 >.
cn TS
c
ro
.c
CJ
-^ “D
P ro
> S”
-E c ro
t/)
Relati
novat ions,
|Core
o
CJ
(1
o
0
N
cn
p
h-
c
ro
0)
CO
C
0
0
JD
to
ro
x: c g
l O >•— ro
d in S’ cioli
ed sini
B
o
0)
Q.
c
P
.c
–
0 E2
“ra ^ 0
c
CJ)
Ol
o
0}
CO
.9 ro
ro
CD
ra
>
u
novati on Di
E
o
E
o
t/)
Q.
to CD
o
“£^Ei
O
ro
CO
ro
c
D
0
P
ro
jE c
”
C
0
fli
c
0
Ol
KTB
I1
;=
2! o
O) ” ^
a
0
•
01
3
D.
.9 =
ro if”
VolunI irin
I
ro
^
gree 1
ttert han it
jfinit ions
•
tj
{-
Cu
0
O
O
sz
p
^
0
12 g
“-1 O ^
m
c
Q
CO
3
CJ
o
p
ro 3 D- c
p iS 1- ro B
CD
.-
E
0
“^ o
0
>
0
O
gree t
c
0
gree t
o
c 2^
(0
ro
igibilit
ig the
nbasc
.c
c^
c
O If
c CT
t/)
ro ro
05
^-
c
nsisti
perie
91, p
0
“TO
o
C
ro ro 0
91).
.g
CO
C
.c
c
ficult
nj
ro
.c
isat
.52
c
“‘
• ”
fd
«
^H
^
H
^H
E
O
CJ)
CO
and
L
0
Ol
o
c
CO
gree t
ro
usin
ci.
0
Stem 1
1
CO
0
• —
E
0 01
D- ^
•a
0
“TO
ro
(fl
CD X I
1=
0
X3
CO
CJ S?
ro cn
1 —
0
CJ
•
•
E
“* 0
0 —5
CO
Ol
> . to
the 0rgani;zatic
TD
0
•
ing
1
ro
0
X
d BenIDasat
•
0
X)
ra
T3
Ct
I/;
0)
0) Q.
0 •o
lidity o
•
–
n is
iocia
^H
^H
ing
1r
dto 1
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance ot IT
o
c
c “n
ro
“TO
“0
0
X3 O to c
ro
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades