Individual differences and usage behavior: revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption

Abstract

A critical assumption of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is that its belief constructs - perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) - fully mediate the influence of external variables on IT usage behavior. If this assumption is true, researchers can effectively "assume away" the effects of broad categories of external variables, those relating to the specific task, the technology, and user differences. One recent study did indeed find that belief constructs fully mediated individual differences, and its authors suggest that further studies with similar results could pave the way for simpler acceptance models that ignore such differences. To test the validity of these authors' results, we conducted a similar study to determine the effect of staff seniority, age, and education level on usage behavior. Our study involved 106 professional and administrative staff in the IT division of a large manufacturing company who voluntarily use email and word processing. We found that these individual user differences have significant direct effects on both the frequency and volume of usage. These effects are beyond the indirect effects as mediated through the TAM belief constructs. Thus, rather than corroborating the recent study, our findings underscore the importance of users' individual differences and suggest that TAM's belief constructs are accurate but incomplete predictors of usage behavior.

References

1. Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. and Todd, P.A. (1992). "Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 227--247.
2. Agarwal, R. (2000). "Individual Acceptance of Information Technologies," in R. W. Zmud (ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future through the Past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, pp. 85--104.
3. Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1999). "Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?," Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 361--391.
4. Ajzen, I. (1985). "From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior," in J. Kuhi and J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 11--39.
5. Ajzen, I. (1991). "The Theory of Planned Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179--211.
6. Ajzen, I. (2001). "Nature and Operation of Attitudes," Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 27--58.
7. Ajzen, I. (2002). "Residual Effects of Past on Later Behavior: Habituation and Reasoned Action Perspectives," Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 107--122.
8. Alavi, M. and Joachimsthaler, E.A. (1992). "Revisiting DSS implementation research: A meta-analysis of the literature and suggestions for researchers," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 95--116.
9. Ang, S. and Slaughter, S.A. (2001). "Work Outcomes and Job Design for Contract Versus Permanent Information Systems Professionals on Software Development Teams," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 321--350.
10. Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (1999). "The Theory of Planned Behavior: Assessment of Predictive Validity and 'Perceived Control'," British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 35--54.
11. Ashcraft, M.H. (2002). Cognition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13. Barclay, D., Higgins, C.A. and Thompson, R.L. (1995). "The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration," Technology Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 285--309.
14. Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Ewing, M. and Carr, C.L. (2002). "Potential Research Space in MIS: A Framework for Envisioning and Evaluating Research Replication, Extension, and Generation," Information Systems Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 416--427.
15. Brigman, S. and Cherry, K.E. (2002). "Age and Skilled Performance: Contributions of Working Memory and Processing Speed," Brain and Cognition, Vol. 50, pp. 242--256.
16. Chau, P.Y.K. (1996). "An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 185--204.
17. Chin, W.W. and Marcolin, B.L. (2001). "The Future of Diffusion Research," The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 8--12.
18. Chin, W.W. and Todd, P.A. (1995). "On the Use, Usefulness, and Ease of Use of Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 237--246.
19. Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A. and Huff, S. (1999). "Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 145--158.
20. Davis, F. (1989). "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and End User Acceptance of Information Technology," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 318--339.
21. Davis, F.D. (1993). "User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 475--487.
22. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989). "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, Vol. 35, pp. 982--1003.
23. Davis, L.D. and Davis, F.D. (1990). "The effect of training techniques and personal characteristics on training end users of information systems," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 93--110.
24. DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992). "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 60--95.
25. DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003). "The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Review," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 9--30.
26. Dishaw, M.T. and Strong, D.M. (1999). "Extending the Technology Acceptance Model with Task-Technology fit Constructs," Information & Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 9--21.
27. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981). "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39--50.
29. Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (1997). "Gender Differences in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 389--400.
30. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. and Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). "Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice," Communications of The AIS, Vol. 4 No., 7, pp. 1--77.
31. Gomez, L.M., Egan, D.E. and Bowers, C. (1986), "Learning to use a text editor: Some learner characteristics that predict success," Human Computer Interaction, Vol. 2, pp. 1--23.
32. Goodhue, D.L. (1995). "Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems," Management Science, Vol. 41, No. 12, pp. 1827--1844.
33. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Hall, D. and Mansfield, R. (1975). "Relationships of Age and Seniority with Career Variables of Engineers and Scientists," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 201--210.
35. Harrison, A.W. and Rainer, R.K. (1992). "The influence of individual differences on skill in end-user computing," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 93--111.
36. Hartwick, J.H. and Barki, H. (1994). "Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use," Management Science, Vol. 40, pp. 440--465.
37. Hong, W., Thong, J.Y.L., Wong, W.-M. and Tam, K.-Y. (2002). "Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and System Characteristics," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 97--124.
38. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G.B. (1995). "Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usage via a Structural Equation Model," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.11, No. 4, pp. 87--114.
39. Igbaria, M. and Parsuraman, S. (1989). "A Path Analytic Study of Individual Characteristics, Computer Anxiety, and Attitudes Towards Microcomputers," Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 373--388.
40. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. and Cavaye, A.L.M. (1997). "Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 279--305.
41. Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. (1999). "The Psychological Origins of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease-of-Use," Information & Management, Vol. 35, pp. 237--250.
42. Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W. and Chervany, N.L. (1999). "Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 183--213.
43. Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. (2003). "Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model," Information & Management, Vol. 40, pp. 191--204.
44. Lucas Jr, H.C. and Spitler, V.K. (1999) "Technology Use and Performance: A Field Study of Broker Workstations," Decision Sciences, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 1--21.
45. Majchrzak, A. and Cotton, J. (1988). "A longitudinal study of adjustment to technological change: From mass to computer-automated batch production," Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 43--66.
46. Markus, M.L. (1994). "Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice," Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 502--527.
47. Mathieson, K. (1991). "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, pp. 173--191.
48. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E. and Chin, W.W. (2001). "Extending the Technology Acceptance Model: The Influence of Perceived User Resources," The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 86--112.
49. Meister, D.B. and Compeau, D.R. (2002). "Infusion of Innovation Adoption: An Individual Perspective," Proceedings of the ASAC, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
50. Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting and Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, pp. 192--222.
51. Morris, M.G. and Venkatesh, V. (2000). "Age Differences in Technology Adoption Decisions: Implications for a Changing Workforce," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 375--403.
52. Nickel, G.S. and Pinto, J.N. (1986). "The computer attitude scale," Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.2, pp. 301--306.
53. Oullette, J.A. and Wood, W. (1998). "Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple Processes by Which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, pp. 54--74.
54. Plouffe, C.R., Hulland, J.S. and Vandenbosch, M. (2001). "Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions--Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System," Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 208--222.
55. Ravichandran, T. and Rai, A. (2000) "Quality Management in Systems Development: An Organizational System Perspective," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 381--415.
56. Rigdon, E.E. (1998). "Structural Equation Modeling," in G.A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 251--294.
57. Robey, D. and Sahay, S. (1996). "Transforming Work through Information Technology: A Comparative Case Study of Geographic Information Systems in County Government," Information Systems Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 93--110.
58. Ronis, D.L., Yates, J.F. and Kirscht, J.P. (1989). "Attitudes, Decisions, and Habits as Determinants of Repeated Behavior," in A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler and A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude Structure and Function, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 213--239.
59. Segars, A.H. and Grover, V. (1993). "Re-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 517--525.
60. Sharma, S. and Rai, A. (2003). "An Assessment of the Relationship Between ISD Leadership Characteristics and IS Innovation Adoption in Organizations," Information & Management, Vol. 40, pp. 391--401.
61. Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
62. Sparks, P. and Guthrie, C.A. (1998). "Self-Identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Useful Addition or an Unhelpful Artifice," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 1393--1410.
63. Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1992). "Self-Identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior: Assessing the Role of Identification with "Green Consumerism"," Social Psychological Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 388--399.
64. Speier, C. and Venkatesh, V. (2002). "The Hidden Minefields in the Adoption of Sales Force Automation Technologies," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 98--111.
65. Straub, D., Limayem, M. and Karahanna-Evaristo, E. (1995). "Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing," Management Science, Vol.41, pp. 1328--1342.
66. Szajna, B. (1996). "Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model," Management Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 85--92.
67. Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. (1995). "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 144--176.
68. Trice, A.W. and Treacy, M.E. (1986). "Utilization as a Dependent Variable in MIS Research," Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, CA, 1986, pp. 227--239.
69. Venkatesh, V. (1999). "Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 239--260.
70. Venkatesh, V. (2000). "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 342--365.
71. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000). "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 186--204.
72. Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000). "Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 115--139.
73. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G. and Ackerman, P.L. (2000). "A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 33--60.
74. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003). "User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 425--478.
75. Verplanken, A., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A. and Moonen, A. (1998). "Habit Versus Planned Behavior: A Field Experiment," British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 539--560.
76. Yoo, Y. and Alavi, M. (2001). "Media and Group Cohesion: Relative Influences on Social Presence, Task Participation, and Group Consensus," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 371--390.
77. Zmud, R.W. (1979). "Individual Differences and MIS Success: A Review of the Empirical Literature," Management Science, Vol. 25, No. 10, pp. 966--979.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Management of computing and information systems