The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5664.htm

A meta-analysis
Technology acceptance: of the TAM
a meta-analysis of the TAM:
Part 1
251
Shumaila Y. Yousafzai, Gordon R. Foxall and John G. Pallister
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Received May 2007
Revised June 2007
Accepted July 2007
Abstract
Purpose – This paper is the first of two concerned with a meta-analysis of the technology acceptance
model (TAM). This part aims to present a narrative literature review of 145 papers published on the TAM.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach takes the form of a literature review of 145 papers
on the TAM.
Findings – The review identifies TAM as a basis for identifying gaps and providing guidelines for
implementation of management and the conduct of future research.
Originality/value – The paper presents a comprehensive literature review and a rigorous
meta-analysis to progress towards a unified view of the TAM.
Keywords Technology led strategy, Research, User studies
Paper type Literature review

Bin-Adhem picked up a stone from beside the road. It had written on it, “Turn me over and
read”. So he picked it up and looked at the other side. And there was written. “Why do you
seek more knowledge when you pay no heed to what you know already?” (Shah, 1968, p. 110).
The technology acceptance model (TAM) originally formulated by Davis (1986) is one
of the most widely tested models of technology acceptance. The TAM adapted Ajzen
and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA) to explain the causal relationship
between users’ internal beliefs (usefulness and ease of use), attitude, intentions, and
computer usage behaviour (Davis et al., 1989). Although, in the last 20 years the TAM
has become well established as a robust, parsimonious, and powerful model for
predicting users’ acceptance of technology (Venkatesh, 2000), few studies have
attempted to validate the full TAM model with all of its original constructs.
Furthermore, the many TAM studies are characterized by different methodological and
measurement factors, resulting in conflicting and somewhat confusing findings which
vary considerably in terms of statistical significance, direction and magnitude.
Reviews of the TAM (Lee et al., 2003a, b; Ma and Liu, 2004) reveal that these mixed
findings not only undermine the precision of TAM, but also complicate efforts for IT
practitioners and academicians to better understand users’ technology acceptance
behaviour. However, the cause of such inconsistencies and the extent to which the
existing body of research reflects significant and cumulative development is not
completely clear. Ma and Liu’s (2004) meta-analysis of the TAM does not provide a Journal of Modelling in Management
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007
complete answer because these authors do not conduct a moderator analysis for the pp. 251-280
effect of different study characteristics. Moreover, their meta-analysis is based on a q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5664
small sample of 26 studies (17 published articles and seven working papers and DOI 10.1108/17465660710834453
JM2 conference proceedings). Lee et al. (2003a, b) focus on the incremental development of
2,3 TAM over the last 17 years, and calculate the total number of significant results for the
relationships proposed by the TAM. Thus, a need exists for a comprehensive review
and synthesis in order to progress towards a unified view of the TAM.
The first objective of this meta-analysis is to conduct a rigorous narrative and
quantitative review of the TAM literature as a basis for providing guidelines for
252 implementation management and the conduct of future research. Linked to this is our
second objective: to investigate the potential impact of the methodological
characteristics of the studies on the findings. To achieve these objectives the paper is
divided into two parts. Part 1 identifies the major contributions and developments to the
TAM model and discusses potential moderators. Part 2 delineates the meta-analytic
approach and discusses the findings and their implications for future research.
This study provides an opportunity to pause and reflect on what has been achieved,
to identify gaps which need to be addressed, and to set directions for future research.
Such a meta-analysis at this time is able to take note of many studies in this domain
published since the article by Davis et al. (1989). Instead of being confined to a specific
topic or theme or a specific type of research setting, we adopt a comprehensive
perspective and incorporate research pertaining to any of the methodological,
technological, or process aspects of the TAM.

The technology acceptance model

A variety of theoretical perspectives has been applied to provide an understanding of
the determinants of technology usage. Information systems (IS) investigators have
suggested intention models from social psychology as a potential theoretical
foundation for research on the determinants of user behaviour (e.g. the TRA (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980) and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)). From this stream of
research, the TAM (Davis et al., 1989), an adaptation of the TRA, has emerged as a
powerful and parsimonious model that “belongs” to the IS field and represents the
antecedents of technology usage through beliefs about two factors: the perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) of a technology. Hence, the TAM:
. . . is specifically meant to explain computer usage behaviour . . . (Davis et al., 1989, p. 983).
The goal of TAM is to [be] . . . capable of explaining user behaviour across a broad range of
end-user computing technologies and user populations, while at the same time being both
parsimonious and theoretically justified (p. 985).
The original TAM is shown in Figure 1. A person’s acceptance of a technology is
hypothesized to be determined by his or her voluntary intentions towards using the
technology. The intention, in turn, is determined by the person’s attitude towards the
use of the technology and his or her perception of its usefulness. Attitudes are formed
from the beliefs a person holds about the use of the technology. The first belief, PU, is
the user’s “subjective probability that using a specific application system will increase
his or her job performance within an organizational context” (Davis et al., 1989, p. 985).
Initially defined in the context of one’s job performance, PU was later used for any
common task in non-organizational settings, e.g. internet shopping. PEOU, the
second belief, is “the degree to which the user expects the target system to be free
of efforts” (p. 985). PU is influenced by PEOU. The strength of such
belief-attitude-intention-behaviour relationships in predicting actual behaviour
 A meta-analysis
Perceived of the TAM
Usefulness

External Behavioural Actual

Attitude
Intention Behaviour
Variables 253
Perceived
Ease of Use Figure 1.
The technological
acceptance model
Source: Davis et al. (1989)

largely depends on the degree of measurement specificity attained in a research project

(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). In order to apply these notions to the technology
acceptance context, it is necessary to measure attitudes and beliefs regarding the use of
technology rather than attitude and beliefs directed towards the technology itself, since
individuals might hold a positive view about a technology without being favourably
disposed towards its use.
Davis et al. (1989) test the original TAM in a longitudinal study and report that the
data partially support the model. In a post hoc data analysis in voluntary settings
(Davis et al., 1989), they suggest a revision of the original TAM which they claim is a
more “powerful [model] for predicting and explaining user behaviour, based on only
three theoretical constructs: intention, PU, and PEOU” (p. 997). The attitudinal
construct was removed because of the partial mediation of the impact of beliefs on
intentions by attitude, a weak direct link between PU and attitude, and a strong direct
link between PU and intentions. PEOU had a small effect on intentions that subsided
over time. From this point onwards, the implications for future research as pointed by
Davis et al. (1989) was to test the generality of a PU – PEOU trade-off, and to assess the
impact of external variables on these internal behavioural determinants.
Originally developed to test the acceptance of word processor technology
(Davis et al., 1989), the TAM has since been extended to the acceptance e-mail, voice
mail, graphics (Adams et al., 1992), DBMS (Szajna, 1994), GSS (Chin and Gopal, 1995),
personal computer (Igbaria et al., 1995b), WWW (Gefen and Straub, 2000), and
tele-medicine technology (Chau and Hu, 2001), among other applications of IT. Table I
lists the 145 papers on the TAM reviewed here, indicating the sample size, sample type,
study type, technology tested, dependent variable, and results of the hypothesis testing
the original TAM relationships. The table also summarizes results about four new
relationships not proposed in the original model, namely PU – usage, PEOU –
intentions, PEOU – usage, and attitude – usage.
No single study tests all the relationships, but they are all measured in at least one
study. While about 47 per cent of the studies measured self-reported usage, less than
9 per cent measured the actual usage. The behavioural intention to use the technology
was measured as the dependent variable in 43 per cent of the studies. The majority
(59 per cent) of the studies have been conducted with non-students and 41 per cent with
 2,3
JM2

254

Table I.

model (TAM)
Review of studies on
technology acceptance
Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

1 *Davis et al.
(1989)
Time-1 107 Lab USA MBA students Word processor Intention to X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes NS Yes
study use
Time-2 107 Lab USA MBA students Word processor Self-reported Yes X X X NS Yes NS Yes Yes Yes
study use
2 *Davis (1989) 109 Field USA Knowledge Electronic mail Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study workers use
75 Field USA Knowledge XEDIT file Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X X
study workers editor use
40 Lab USA MBA students Chart master Self-predicted X X Yes NS X X X X X NS
study use
40 Lab USA MBA students Pendraw Self-predicted X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study use
3 Mathieson 149 Lab USA Under Spread sheet Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes
(1991) study graduate use
students
4 *Adams et al. 116 Field USA Knowledge Electronic mail Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
(1992) study workers use
68 Field USA Knowledge Voice mail Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study workers use
64 Lab USA MBA students Word perfect Self-reported X X NS NS X X X X X Yes
study use
67 Lab USA MBA students Lotus 123 Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
study use
54 Lab USA MBA students Harvard Self-reported X X NS Yes X X X X X NS
study graphics use
5 *Davis et al.
(1992)
Study-1 200 Field USA Mba students Word processor Self-reported Yes X Yes X X Yes NS X X Yes
study use
Study-2 80 Lab USA MBA students Graphic Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
study software use
6 *Davis (1993) 185 Field USA Knowledge Email and text Self-reported X Yes Yes X X X X Yes Yes Yes
study workers editor use
7 Hendrickson 123 Field USA Under Database and Self-reported X X X X X X X X X Yes
et al. (1993) study graduate spreadsheet perceptions
students
8 *Igbaria 519 Field USA Knowledge Microcomputer Self-reported Yes Yes X X Yes Yes X Yes X X
(1993) study workers tech. use
9 Segars and 191 NA USA Adams et al. E-mail/v-mail, Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
Grover (1993) data s/w package use
10 *Igbaria 471 Field USA Knowledge Micro computer Self-reported X Yes Yes X X X X X X X
(1994) study workers use
(continued)
 Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

11 *Lu and
Gustafson
(1994)
Time-1 35 Lab USA Users of the Interactive supp. Measured use X X NS Yes X X X X X Yes
study system system
Time-2 34 Lab Measured use X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study
12 *Phillips et al. 303 Field China Knowledge Tech. equipment Intention to X X X X Yes X X Yes Yes NS
(1994) study workers use
13 Straub (1994) 920 Field USA Knowledge E-mail and fax Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study (711), workers use
Japan
(209)
14 *Subra 179 Field USA Knowledge V-mail and Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X NS
manian study workers customer dialup use
(1994)
15 Szajna (1994) 231 Lab USA MBA students Bibliographic Self-reported X X X X X X X X X Yes
study database perceptions
16 Chin and 64 Field Canada Under Group support Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
Gopal (1995) study graduate systems use
students
17 *Igbaria and 450 Field Finland Knowledge Personal computer Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
Iivari (1995) study workers use
18 *Igbaria et al. 214 Field USA MBA students Micro computer Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
(1995a) study use
19 *Igbaria et al. 450 Field Finland Knowledge Micro computer Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
(1995b) study workers use
20 *Keil et al. 306 Field USA Knowledge Expert support Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
(1995) study workers systems use
21 Straub et al. 458 Field USA Knowledge Voice mail Self-reported/ X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
(1995) study workers measured use
22 *Taylor and 786 Lab Canada Under Comp. resource Measured use Yes NS Yes Yes NS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Todd (1995) study graduate and centre
MBA
23 *Agarwalet al. 230 Field USA Knowledge Operating system Intention to X X X X Yes X X Yes Yes Yes
(1996) study workers use
24 *Chau (1996a)
Sudy-1 192 Field Hong Adminis Word processor Intention to X X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
study Kong trative staff use
Sudy-2 176 Spread sheet X X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
25. *Chau (1996b) 97 Field Hong System CASE tools Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study Kong developers use
(continued)
A meta-analysis
of the TAM

255

Table I.
 2,3
JM2

256

Table I.
Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

26. *Davis and 708 Lab USA MBA students Word proc. and Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
Venkatesh study spread sheet use
(1996)
27. *Hendrickson 75 Field USA Under Lotus and word Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
and Collins study graduate perfect use
(1996) students
28. *Igbaria et al. 471 Field USA Knowledge Micro computer Self-reported X X Yes X X X X X X X
(1996) study workers use
29. Montazemi 125 Lab Canada Knowledge Software package Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
et al. (1996) study workers use
30 *Szajna (1996)
Time-1 61 Lab USA Graduate E-mail Measured use NS X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
study students
Time-1 Self-reported Yes X X X X X X X X X
use
Time-2 61 Lab Measured use Yes X X X X Yes NS X X X
study
Time-2 Self-reported Yes X Yes X X X X X X X
use
31. *Venkatesh 108 Lab USA Under Software packages Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
and Davis study graduate and use
(1996) MBA
32. *Agarwal and 73 Field USA MBA students World wide web Self-reported Yes X Yes Yes X Yes Yes X X Yes
Prasad (1997) study use
33. Gefen and 392 Field Japan, Knowledge E-mail Self- reported X X Yes NS X X X X X X
Straub (1997) study Switzer workers use
land,
USA
34. Ghorab (1997) 47 Field USE Bank Computerised bank Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study managers sys. use
35. *Igbaria et al. 358 Field New Knowledge Personal computer Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
(1997) study Zealand workers use
36. *Jackson et al. 111 Field USA Knowledge Information system Intention to X X X X NS NS Yes NS Yes NS
(1997) study workers use
37. *Morris and 76 Field USA Under Netscape browser Self-reported Yes X X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes NS
Dillon (1997) study graduate use
students
38 Straub et al.
(1997)
Group-1 142 Field Japan Knowledge E-mail Self-reported X X NS NS X X X X X X
study workers use
Group-2 152 Switzer X X Yes NS X X X X X X
land
Group-3 99 USA X X Yes NS X X X X X X
(continued)
 Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

39. *Wiedenbeck 173 Lab USA Under Word processor Perceptions X X X X X X X X X Yes
and Davis study graduate
(1997) students
40. *Agarwal and 76 Field USA Knowledge Software packages Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
Prasad (1998a) study workers use
41. Agarwal and 175 Field USA MBA students World wide web Intention to X X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
Prasad (1998b) study use
42. *Bajaj and 25 Lab USA Under Software packages Self-reported X Yes Neg Neg X X X Neg Yes NS
Nidumolu study graduate use
(1998) students
43. Doll et al. 902 Lab USA Under Spreadsheet, Perceptions X X X X X X X X X Yes
(1998) study graduate database
students
44. *Dias (1998) 79 Field Brazil Managers Microcomputers Perceptions X X X X X X X X X Yes
study
45. Dillon et al. 78 Field USA Accounting Tax preparation Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes
(1998) study students s/w use
46. *Gefen and 196 Field USA Knowledge Expert system Self-reported X X Yes Neg X X X X X Yes
Keil (1998) study workers use
47. *Green (1998) 31 Field USA Computer Software packages Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study programmers use
48. *Loh and Ong 84 Web Singa Under Online trading Self-reported X NS Yes NS X X X Yes Yes Yes
(1998) survey pore graduate system use
students
49. *Lu and Yeh 90 Field Taiwan Knowledge Buss. process Intention to X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(1998) study workers re-engg. use
50. *Rose and 274 Field Egypt, Knowledge Personal computers Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
Straub (1998) study Jordan, workers use
Saudi
Arabia,
Sudan,
Lebanon
51. *Al-Gahtani 329 Field UK Under Spread sheets Self-reported X Yes NS NS X X X Yes Yes X
and King study graduate use
(1999) students
52. Agarwal and 230 Field USA IT vendor Personal computers Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes
Prasad (1999) study personnel use
53. *Brosnan 147 Lab UK Under Word processor Self-reported Yes X Yes X X Yes X X X Neg
(1999) study graduate use
students
54. Dishaw and 60 Field USA Programmer S/w maintenance Self-reported Yes X Yes X Yes Yes X Yes NS Yes
Strong (1999) study analysts tool use
(continued)
A meta-analysis
of the TAM

257

Table I.
 2,3
JM2

258

Table I.
Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

55. Hu et al. (1999) 408 Field Hong Physicians Telemedicine Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes NS NS
study Kong technology use
56. Karahanna 100 Field USA Knowledge E-mail Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
and Straub study workers use
(1999)
57. Karahanna 268 Field USA Knowledge Operating system Intention to X X X X Yes Yes NS X X X
et al. (1999) study workers use
58. *Lucas and 131 Field USA Brokers, sales Work stations Self-reported X X NS NS X NS NS X X Yes
Spitler (1999) study assistant use
59. *Phelps and 54 Field Singa Knowledge Intranet Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
Mok (1999) study pore workers use
60. *Schaik (1999) 19 Field Nether Students Smart card Intention to X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NS
study lands use
61. *Teo et al. 1370 Web Singa Internet users Internet Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
(1999) survey pore use
62. Venkatesh 215 Lab USA Business Virtual workplace Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
(1999) study professionals sys. use
63. *Agarwal and 71 Field USA Programmers C programming Intention to X X X X Yes NS Yes Yes NS Yes
Prasad (2000) study use
64. *Agarwal and 288 Field USA Under WWW Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X NS
Karahanna study graduate use
(2000) students
65. *Anandarajan 80 Field USA MBA students Internet Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
et al. (2000b) study use
66. *Anandarajan 88 Field Nigeria Bank Personal computer Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
et al. (2000a) study employees use
67. Gefen (2000) 135 Field USA Knowledge MRP-II systems Self-reported X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
study workers use
68. *Gefen and 217 Lab USA MBA students Online book shop Intention to X X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
Straub (2000) study use
69. *Jiang et al. 335 Field France Under Internet Self-reported X X Yes X X X X X X X
(2000) study (110), graduate use
Hong students
Kong
(105),
USA
(120)
70. Karahanna 211 Field USA Knowledge E-mail Self-reported X X NS Yes X X X X X Yes
and Limayem study workers use
(2000)
173 Field USA Knowledge Voice mail Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study workers use
(continued)
 Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

71. Kucuk and 148 Field Turkey Internet users Web marketing Intention to X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Arslan (2000) study (52), UK tools use
(51),
Denmark
(45)
72. Lederer et al. 163 Web USA Knowledge World wide web Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
(2000) survey workers use
73. *Lin and Lu 139 Lab Taiwan Under World wide web Intention to X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2000) study graduate use
students
74. *Lou et al. 385 Field USA Business Lotus groupware Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
(2000) study students use
75. *Lucas and 41 Field USA Knowledge Broker work Self-reported Neg X Yes Yes X Yes NS X X Yes
Spitler (2000) study workers stations use
76. *Roberts and 108 Field Australia Knowledge Information Self-reported X Yes Yes X X X X Yes X X
Henderson study workers technology use
(2000)
77. Ridings and 148 Field USA Knowledge Software package Intention to X X X X X Neg/Yes NS X X Yes
Gefen (2000) study workers use
78. *Venkatesh 282 Field USA Knowledge Software packages Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
(2000) study workers use
79. *Venkatesh 156 Field USA Knowledge Software packages Self-reported Yes X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
and Davis study workers use
(2000)
80. *Venkatesh 342 Field USA Knowledge Software package Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
and Morris study workers use
(2000)
81. *Wober and 77 Field Austria Tourism Decision support Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
Gretzel (2000) study managers sys. use
82. *Al-Gahtani 324 Field UK Under Spreadsheet Self-reported X Yes Yes X X X X Yes Yes Yes
(2001) study graduate use
students
83. Bhattacherjee 172 Web USA Website users Online brokerage Intention to X X X X X Yes X X X X
(2001) survey service use
84. Chau (2001) 360 Field Hong Under MS word, Excel, Intention to X X X X X Yes X X X Yes
study Kong graduate Access use
students
85. Chau and Hu 421 Field Hong Knowledge Telemedicine tech. Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes NS NS
(2001) study Kong workers use
86. Childers et al. 540 USA Students/ World wide web Attitude X X X X X X X Yes Yes X
(2001) Customers towards use
(continued)
A meta-analysis
of the TAM

259

Table I.
 2,3
JM2

260

Table I.
Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

87. Handy et al. 102 Field New Doctors and Healthcare Self- X Yes Yes Yes X X X Yes Yes X
(2001) study Zealand midwives database reported use
88. *Horton et al.
(2001)
Study-1 386 Field UK Bank Intranet Self-reported Yes X Yes Yes X Yes Yes X X Yes
study employees use
Study-2 65 Field UK Eng. co. Intranet Measured use NS X NS Yes X Yes Yes X X Yes
study employee
89. *Lu et al. 108 Lab Taiwan Under Decision support Intention to X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2001) study graduate sys. use
students
90. Mathieson 401 Field USA Graduate Bulletin board Self-reported Yes X X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes
et al. (2001) study students system use
91. *Moon and 152 Field South Under World wide web Self-reported Yes X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kim (2001) study Korea graduate use
students
92. Pijpers et al. 87 Field Nether Senior Software packages Self-reported X X X X Yes X X Yes Yes NS
(2001) study lands executives use
93. *Plouffe et al. 172 Field Canada Merchants Smart card Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
(2001) study use
94. Riemens 85 Field USA Application CASE tools Self-reported X X NS Yes X X X X X Yes
chneider and study developers use
Hardgrave
(2003)
95. *Townsend 64 Lab USA Under Desktop video conf. Measured use X Neg X X X X X Yes Yes NS
et al. (2001) study graduate
students
96. *Aladwani 387 Lab Kuwait Business Online book store Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
(2002) study students purchase
97. *Anandarajan 143 Field Nigeria Knowledge Microcomputers Self-reported X X NS Yes X X X X X Yes
et al. (2002) study workers use
98. Benamati and 10 Interview USA Outsourcing Outsourcing Intention to X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rajkumar managers use
(2002)
99. Brown et al.
(2002)
Model-1 107 Field USA Bank Comp. banking Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
study employees system use
Model-2 X X X X NS NS X Yes NS Yes
100. Chau and Hu 408 Field Hong Physicians Telemedicine tech. Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes NS NS
(2002a) study Kong use
101. *Chau and Hu 408 Field Hong Physicians Telemedicine tech. Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes NS NS
(2002b) study Kong use
102. Chen et al. 253 Web USA Website users Virtual store Self-reported Yes X X X Yes NS X Yes Yes Yes
(2002) survey use
(continued)
 Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

103. *Dabholkar 392 Lab USA Under Self-service Intention to X X X X Yes X X Yes Yes X
and Bagozzi study graduate technology use
(2002) students
104. *Dasgupta 60 Lab USA Under Group support Measured use X X Neg Neg X X X X X Yes
et al. (2002) study graduate system
students
105. *Devraj et al. 134 Web USA Business Online shopping Intention to X X X X Yes X X Yes Yes Yes
(2002) survey students use
106. Gentry and 200 Field USA Under Virtual store Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes Neg NS
Calantone study graduate use
(2002) students
107. *Hong et al. 585 Field Hong Students Digital library Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
(2002) study Kong use
108. *Koufaris 280 Web USA Website users Online book store Intention to X X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
(2002) survey use
109. *Liaw (2002) 260 Field USA Under World wide web Intention to X X X X X Yes X X X X
study graduate use
students
110. *Lowry (2002) 185 Field UK Professional Building mgmt. Self-reported X X NS NS X NS Yes X X Yes
study engineers system use
111. *Riemens 128 Field USA Application App. develop. Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
chneider et al. study developers method use
(2002)
112. *Schaik et al. 49 Lab UK Physio Clinical support Intention to X X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
(2002) study therapists system use
113. *Seyal et al. 166 Field Brunei Academic Internet Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X X
(2002) study staff use
114. *Stafford and 329 Field USA Students Online auction Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
Stern (2003) study website use
115. *Suh and Han 845 Web South E-banking Internet banking Self-reported Yes Yes X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes
(2002) survey Korea users use
116. *Thong et al. 397 Field Hong Students Digital library Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
(2002) study Kong use
117. *van Dolen 198 Lab Nether Business Moderated group Attitude X X X X X X X Yes Yes Yes
and de Ruyter study lands students chat (satisfaction)
(2002)
118. *Venkatesh 215 Lab USA Knowledge Software package Measured use Yes X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
et al. (2002) study workers
119. *Choi et al. 2291 Web South Website users Interactive TV Intention to X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2003) survey Korea use
120. *Featherman 395 Lab USA Business Electronic billing Intention to X X X X X Yes Neg X X Neg
and Pavlou study students service adopt
(2003)
(continued)
A meta-analysis
of the TAM

261

Table I.
 2,3
JM2

262

Table I.
Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

121. Gefen (2003) 179 Web USA Business Online shopping Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
survey students mall use
122. *Gefen et al. 213 Field USA Business Website Intention to X X X X X Yes Yes X X Yes
(2003a) study students use
123. *Gefen et al. 317 Lab USA Business Online book store Intention to X X X X X Yes X X X NS
(2003b) study students use
124. Hackbarth 116 Field USA Graduate MS Excel Perceptions X X X X X X X X X X
et al. (2003) study students
125. *Hardgrave 150 Field USA Software OOP develop. Intention to X X X X X Yes X X X X
and Johnson study developers software use
(2003)
126. *Hardgrave 128 Field USA Software S/w develop. Intention to X X X X X Yes X X X X
et al. (2003) study developers method use
127. *Heijden 825 Web Nether Website users Web portal Self-reported Yes X X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes
(2003) survey lands use
128. Henderson 247 Web Australia Online Web store Measured use X X Yes NS X X X X X Yes
and Divett survey customers
(2003)
129. Hu et al. (2003) 138 Lab Hong Public school Power point Intention to X X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
study Kong teachers use
130. Lee and Lee 130 Web South Website users Online store Intention to X X X X Yes Yes NS Yes Yes X
(2003) survey Korea use
131. Lee et al. 31 Field n/a Students Black board Self-reported X Yes Yes X X X X Yes X Yes
(2003a) study systems use
132. *Liaw and 114 Field Taiwan Medical World wide web Intention to X X X X X Yes X X X Yes
Huang (2003) study students use
133. Lim (2003) n/a Field Singa Knowledge Negotiation sup. Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes
study pore workers syss use
134. Lu et al. (2003) n/a Field USA MBA students Wireless internet Intention to X X X X Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes
study accept
135. O’Cass and 392 Web Australia Website users World wide web Intention to X X X X Yes X X Yes Yes X
Fenech (2003) survey use
136. Olson and 416 Field USA Online Online retailer Self-reported X Yes Yes Yes X X X Yes Yes Yes
Boyer (2003) study customers use
137 Pavlou (2003)
* Study-1 102 Lab USA Under Online retailers Intention to X X X X X Yes NS X X Yes
study graduate use
students
Study-2 155 Web USA Online users Online retailers Self-reported Yes X Yes Yes X Yes Yes X X Yes
survey use
138. *Riemens 156 Field USA Knowledge IT adoption Intention to X X X X Yes NS X Yes Yes NS
chneider et al. study workers use
(2003)
(continued)
 Sample Study Dependent
Study size type Country Subject type System type variable I!U A!U PU!U PEU!U A!I PU!I PEU!I PU!A PEU!A PEU!PU

139. *Selim (2003) 403 Field UAE Under Course related Self-reported X X Yes Yes X X X X X Yes
study graduate websites use
students
140. Suh and Han 502 Web South E-banking Internet banking Self-reported Yes X X X Yes X X X X X
(2003) survey Korea users use
141. *Sussman and 63 Field USA Consultants Comp. mediated Self-reported X X Yes X X X X X X X
Siegal (2003) study advice use
142. *Teo et al. 69 Lab n/a Under Virtual Intention to X X X X Yes Yes NS Yes Yes NS
(2003) study graduate communities use
students
143. *Venkatesh 348 Field USA Knowledge Workplace Measured use Yes X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
et al. (2003) n study workers technologies
144. *Yi and 109 Web USA Under Black board Measured use Yes X X X X Yes Yes X X NS
Hwang (2003) survey graduate systems
students
145. Shih (2004) 212 Field Taiwan Knowledge World wide web Intention to X X X X Yes NS NS Yes Yes Yes
study workers use

Note: U – usage; I – behavioural intentions; PU – perceived usefulness; A – attitude; PEU – perceived ease of use; Yes – relationship validated; NS – relationship non-significant or rejected; Neg. – reverse findings; x
– relationship not tested; NA – not available; * ¼ studies marked with an asterisk ( *) are included in the meta-analysis (due to availability of required data); X ¼ Studies marked with “X” are longitudinal studies
A meta-analysis
of the TAM

263

Table I.
JM2 the students. In a few cases, longitudinal studies have been conducted, although the
2,3 duration of the studies was not always reported.
The widespread popularity of the TAM is broadly attributable to three factors:
(1) it is parsimonious, IT-specific, and is designed to provide an adequate
explanation and prediction of a diverse user population’s acceptance of a wide
range of systems and technologies within varying organizational and cultural
264 contexts and expertise levels;
(2) it has a strong theoretical base and a well researched and validated inventory of
psychometric measurement scales, making its use operationally appealing; and
(3) it has accumulated strong empirical support for its overall explanatory power
and has emerged as a pre-eminent model of users acceptance of technology
(Chau, 1996a; Hu et al., 1999; Mathieson, 1991; Szajna, 1996).

Replication of the original TAM study suggests that it holds across persons, setting,
cultures, countries, and times, the last being a requirement for robust theories (Cook
and Campbell, 1979). The first study outside North America was by Phillips et al.
(1994) whose work validated the TAM in China and whose results suggest that cultural
affinity had a significant and positive influence on the TAM through PEOU.
The results of Straub et al. (1997) indicate that the TAM holds for the USA and
Switzerland but not for Japan, suggesting that culture can exert an effect on the
predictive capacity of the TAM. Table II presents summative statistics for TAM
studies classified by country.

Role of attitude in the TAM

Attitude is described in the literature as an “individual’s positive or negative feelings
(evaluative effect) about performing the target behaviour” (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975,
p. 216). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) argue that attitudes towards an object influence
intentions which, in turn, influence behaviour with respect to the object, that is, its use.
Considering user satisfaction as an attitude (DeLone and McLean, 1992), the IS
research to date has mostly assessed the attitude towards the output of a system,
rather than that of using the system. Brown et al. (2002) suggest that a neglected
stimulus in IS research is the attitude towards using the system.

Austria 1 (77) Hong Kong 12 (3695) Singapore 4 (1508)

Australia 3 (747) Japan 3 (493) South Korea 5 (3920)
Brazil 1 (79) Jordan 1 (121) Sudan 1 (45)
Brunei 1 (166) Kuwait 1 (387) Switzerland 2 (304)
Canada 4 (1147) Lebanon 1 (35) Taiwan 5 (663)
China 1 (303) Netherlands 4 (1129) Turkey 1 (52)
Denmark 1 (45) Nigeria 2 (231) UAE 2 (450)
Egypt 1 (45) New Zealand 2 (460) UK 8 (1536)
Finland 2 (900) Saudi Arabia 1 (28) USA 98 (17787)
Table II. France 1 (110)
Technology acceptance Total sample size for TAM studies ¼ 36463
model (TAM) studies by
country classification Note: No of studies (cumulative sample size for the country)
Attitude is included in the original formulation of TAM, however, a subsequent study A meta-analysis
by Davis et al. (1989, pp. 995-6) conducted in a volitional environment demonstrated of the TAM
that the explanatory power of the TAM is equally good and it is more parsimonious
without the mediating attitude construct. After that, it became the norm to exclude the
attitude construct from the TAM (Table I). Later research on the TAM indicates that
attitude may play a central mediating role for determining mandatory usage; however,
its direct relationship to behavioural intentions was not supported (Jackson et al., 1997; 265
Adams et al., 1992). “Attitude, like many behavioural variables, may be a necessary but
not sufficient condition for success” (Jackson et al., 1997, p. 383). This would appear to
support the contention of Davis et al. (1989) that attitude may not be a strong
determinant of intentions in workplace settings when other factors such as usefulness
are independently taken into account. The explanation for such findings is based on
the fact that, in work-related settings, performance is key, and intentions will be
formed based on performance considerations rather than simply on personal likes or
dislikes with respect to performing a behaviour (Taylor and Todd, 1995).
Although the revised TAM dispenses with attitudinal mediation between beliefs
and intentions, research indicates that in mandatory environments, attitude has been
shown to correlate strongly with usage behaviour. In the mandatory environment, “a
user’s only freedom of choice, assuming that he or she does not want to leave the
organization, is how wholeheartedly to accept the innovation” (Leonard-Barton, 1998,
p. 604). Employees who do not wholeheartedly accept the innovation can delay or
obstruct the implementation, and resent, under-utilize or sabotage the new system
(Markus, 1983). Brown et al. (2002) suggest that these reactions are a result of the
positive or negative attitude that employees form towards the technology. In
mandatory environments, attitude is likely to take on heightened importance and thus
warrant consideration.

Measurement of the dependent variable

Previous research on the TAM has found little similarity between self-reported
(subjective) and computer recorded (objective) measures of IT usage (Chin, 1996;
Straub et al., 1995; Szajna, 1996). To be an effective surrogate, self-reported usage must
be a valid measure of use correlating strongly with other methods of measuring usage,
that is, it must exhibit convergent validity (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, it should
correlate more strongly with another method of measuring the same construct
(e.g. actual usage) than with another construct using the same measuring method
(e.g. intentions), that is, show discriminant validity (Campbell and Fiske, 1959).
However, both Straub et al. (1995) and Szajna (1996) found a weak correlation between
self-reported and actual usage. Szajna also found that the correlation of self-reported
usage with intention was higher than its correlation with actual usage, providing little
support for discriminant validity. The weak support for discriminant validity was
due to the fact that all constructs of the TAM (PU, PEOU, intention, attitude) are
self-reported and when correlated with self-reported usage, common method variance
becomes an important factor (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). In addition, the demand
characteristics of the research environment and the halo effect can influence
associations among self-reported constructs (Szajna, 1996). Straub et al. (1995, p. 1336)
suggest that:
JM2 . . . research that has relied on subjective measures for both independent variable . . . and
dependent variables, such as system use . . . may not be uncovering true, significant effects,
2,3 but mere artifacts.
They further suggest that IT usage should be reformulated as two separate constructs:
perceived usage and actual usage, and that the TAM may require a substantial
reformulation. Questioning this interpretation, Chin (1996) brought in the notion of
266 observer-relative features to explain why the usage measures developed in Straub et al.
(1995) fail to be related within the TAM construct. He suggests that the extent of usage
may not be as appropriate as an adoption/acceptance function usage when embedded
in the TAM context. Chin (1996) also highlighted internal consistency and temporal
problems in measured use and suggest that the meaning attributed to usage must be
assessed more deeply than the mode of measurement.

Relative importance of PU and PEOU in the TAM

The TAM emphasizes the importance of PU (over PEOU) as the key determinant of
acceptance. Most of the studies, beginning with that of Davis et al. (1989), have not
found a direct linkage between PEOU and usage, leading to PEOU’s being treated as
something of a “step-child” (Venkatesh, 1999, p. 254). Similarly, Davis (1989) found the
direct effect of PEOU on intentions to be stronger in the early stages of learning and
behaviour. With time and experience, the effect was found to become indirect,
operating through PU (p. 332), a thesis that has also been posited by later research
(Adams et al., 1992 Study-1; Chau, 1996a; Gefen and Straub, 2000; Igbaria et al., 1996).
Moreover, Keil et al. (1995, p. 89) report that “no amount of ease of use will compensate
for low usefulness”.
The role of PEOU in TAM remains debatable, however, in that some studies show
that PEOU has a direct and equal (Adams et al., 1992 Study-2; Agarwal and Prasad,
1997), or a stronger effect than PU (Chau, 1996b; Igbaria et al., 1997; Karahanna and
Limayen, 2000) on technology adoption. In contrast to Davis (1989) and Lu
and Gustafson (1994) found a spurious relationship between PU and initial usage and
suggested that PEOU is an intervening variable between usage and PU. In fact, some
studies suggests a negative effect of PU on usage (Bajaj and Nidumolu, 1998; Dasgupta
et al., 2002).
Gefen and Straub (2000) argue that, since in many cases the new technology is
adopted because of its extrinsic aspect (captured through PU) and not its intrinsic
aspect, PEOU will affect use when the intrinsic character of the technology contributes
to the actual outcome of its application. Similarly, the results from Venkatesh (1999)
indicate that PEOU can be a strong catalyst fostering acceptance in a positive and
enjoyable training environment. His results suggest that users who underwent a
game-based training experienced a higher overall effect of PEOU on their intentions as
compared to PU. This implies that the appropriate priming of users and tasks increases
the importance of PEOU.
The results of Igbaria and Iivari (1995) on the one hand strengthened the external
validity of the TAM in Finland, and on the other shed light on inconsistent earlier
results. They suggest that “beliefs about outcome (PU) may not be sufficient to affect
behaviors if individuals doubt their capabilities to successfully use the computer
technology” (p. 600). Contrary to the original TAM, which assumed the influence of
external variables to be channelled through PU and PEOU, their results indicated a
strong direct effect of experience on usage; it was the second highest influence after PU. A meta-analysis
Szajna (1996) also recommended adding an experience component as an extension of of the TAM
the TAM.
PU was later expanded to include two closely related but different concepts:
near-term PU and long-term PU, with near-term PU having the most significant affect
on intentions, followed by long-term PU, whereas no significant relationship was found
between PEOU and intentions (Chau, 1996b). Jiang et al. (2000) validated these results 267
for self-reported use. Research suggests sex (Gefen and Straub, 1997; Venkatesh and
Morris, 2000) and task type (Gefen and Straub, 2000; Moon and Kim, 2001) affect the
relative importance of PU and PEOU.
These considerations and Table I suggest that for different type of technology user
populations, and in different time periods the relative importance of PU and PEOU is
variable, reflecting a potential “non-applicability” of the TAM in some contexts.
However, the TAM literature has not effectively dealt with these inconsistencies.

Reliability and validity of PU and PEOU measurement scales

Davis (1986, 1989, 1993) and Davis et al. (1989) developed and validated the original
instrument for measuring PU and PEOU, which was later replicated by Adams et al.
(1992), Mathieson (1991), and Hendrickson et al. (1993). Segars and Grover (1993) used
confirmatory factor analysis with LISREL and identified potential weaknesses in the
measures, suggesting that PU be split into two dimensions “PU” and “effectiveness”.
They note that:
. . . determining the structure of psychological constructs such as “ease of use” and
“usefulness” is a complex activity . . . of critical importance in accurately explaining levels of
usage . . . [and that] no absolute measure for these constructs exists across varying
technological and organizational contexts (p. 525).
However, Chin and Todd (1995) question this interpretation; they re-examine data from
Adams et al. (1992) together with data from a new study and show that the original
single dimension of PU was more accurate. In another study of two applications in two
organizations, Subramanian (1994) found that PU and PEOU constructs were robust
and concluded that IS researchers can use these instruments in varying technological
and organizational contexts.
The Cronbach a reliability of the TAM scales generally exceeds 0.9 across
numerous studies. The scales exhibit a high degree of convergent, discriminant, and
nomological validity (Doll et al., 1998). Over the last 17 years, the cumulative number of
items for measuring PU has increased from the original six to currently about 50, and
that for PEOU has increased from six to 38 (Ma and Liu, 2004).
Davis and Venkatesh (1996) in their experiments on 708 subjects, found that item
grouping vs item intermixing had no significant effect (positive or negative) either on
the high levels of reliability and validity of the TAM scales, or on the path coefficients
linking them together. They suggest that the TAM measures should be employed
using the original (grouped) format in order to best predict and explain user acceptance
of technology.
JM2 External variables and internal beliefs
A key limitation of the TAM is that while it provides a valuable insight into users’
2,3 acceptance and use of technology, it focus only on the determinants of use (PU and
PEOU) and does not reveal how such perceptions are formed or how they can be
manipulated to foster users’ acceptance and increased usage (Mathieson, 1991).
According to Davis et al. (1989), one of the key purposes of the TAM was to provide a
268 basis for tracing the impact of external factors on internal beliefs, i.e. PU and PEOU,
and to link that to actual use. Chin and Gopal (1995, p. 46) suggest, “greater
understanding may be garnered in explicating the casual relationship among beliefs
and their antecedent factors”. The implication is that without a better understanding of
the antecedents of PU and PEOU practitioners are unable to know which levers to pull
in order to affect these beliefs and, through them, the use of technology. The first
external variable added to the TAM was output quality (Davis et al., 1992), and since
then researchers have proposed more than 70 external variables for PU and PEOU.
Table III divides these external variables into four categories of organizational, system,
users’ personal characteristics, and other variables.

Potential moderators
Although TAM has been proved as a robust model with high-predictive validity,
results from a variety of studies suggests that in some circumstances the model does
not provide a complete understanding of the phenomenon studied. More specifically, in
some cases the predictive efficacy of an independent variable and/or the form of
relationship may vary systematically as a function of some other variable(s).
Understanding of these variables, although not part of the model, can provide greater
insight into the phenomenon examined. One alternative to the classic validation model,
proposed by Saunders (1956) in psychological literature and used increasingly in
marketing, is the concept of moderating variables. A moderator variable has been
defined as one which systematically modifies either the form/or strength of the
relationship between a predictor and a criterion variable (Sharma et al., 1981). There
are three different points of views about what specifically a moderator variable is and
how it operates to influence the classic validation model:
(1) Some researchers suggest that a variable is a moderator if it interacts with a
predictor variable irrespective of whether the hypothesized moderator variable
is a significant predictor as well (Fry, 1971; Horton, 1979; Peters and Champoux,
1979).
(2) A second concept is that a moderator cannot be a significant predictor variable
(Cohon and Cohon, 1975; Zedeck, 1971).
(3) Finally, a third approach is to use an analytic procedure to examine differences
between individuals grouped on the basis of some hypothesised moderator
variables (Bennett and Harrell, 1975; Ghiselli, 1960, 1963; Hobert and Dunnette,
1967).

Basically, there are two types of moderator variables. One type influences the
validation model by affecting the strength of the relationship and the second modifies
the form of the validation model. The moderators used in our meta-analysis influences
the strength of the relationship between criterion and predictor variable, but they are
not significantly related to either of them. Thus, we have taken the third approach to
 A meta-analysis
Organizational User personal
characteristics System characteristics characteristics Other variables of the TAM
ab a
Competitive Accessibility Age Argument for
environmentab changeab
End-user supportab Access costab Awarenessab Cultural affinityb
Group’s Compatibilityab Cognitive absorptionab External computing 269
innovativeness norma supportab
Implementation gapab Confirmation Computer anxiety ab
External computing
mechanisma trainingab
Internal computing Convenienceab Computer attitudeab Facilitating
supportab conditionsab
Internal computing Image/interfaceab Computer literacyab Subjective normsa
trainingab
Job insecurityab Information qualitya Educational levelab Situational
normalityab
Management Media styleab Experienceab Social influenceab
supportab
Organizational Navigationb Genderab Social pressureab
policiesa
Organizational Objective usabilityb Intrinsic motivationab Task technology fitab
structureab
Organizational Output qualityab Involvement Task characteristicsab
supportab (situational/intrinsic)ab
Organizational usagea Perceived Personalityab Vendor’s
attractivenessab co-operationab
ab
Peer influence Perceived complexitya Perceived developer’s
responsivenessab
a
Peer usage Perceived importancea Perceived enjoymentab
Trainingab Perceived software Perceived playfulnessb
correctnessa
Transitional Perceived riskab Perceived resourcesa
supportab
Relevance with jobab Personal innovativeness
Reliability and Role with technologyab
accuracyab
Response timeab Self-efficacyab
Result Shopping orientationab
demonstrabilityab
Screen designab Skills and knowledgeab
Social presenceab Trustab
System qualityab Tenure in work forceab
Terminologyab Voluntarinessab
Trialabilityab Table III.
Visibilityab External variables
Web securityab proposed to affect the
internal beliefs (PU and
Notes: aproposed to affect PU; bproposed to affect PEOU PEOU)

examine differences between individuals grouped on the basis of some hypothesized

moderator variables. In such a situation, the error term is posited to be a function of
the moderator variable. When the number of potential moderator variable is
large, however, blind application of meta-analysis can produce superfluous results
JM2 (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990). To avoid the capitalization of chance problems, Hunter
2,3 and Schmidt (1990) suggest that only theory-suggested moderator variables be tested.
In this study, we focus on the moderating effect of subject type, method type,
measurement of usage, and the type of technology tested.
Subject type
270 Researchers have raised concerns about the generalizability of student-based findings
across the consumer population (Burnett and Dunne, 1986). Students’ restricted age
range, limited experience with the technology, relatively low income, and different
motivations for the use of technology have resulted in students being portrayed as
atypical users. Students have also been portrayed as having yet-to-be-solidified
cognitive structures that make them more susceptible than are others to reference
group influence (Park and Lessig, 1997). More important, these distinctions could
translate into differences in how the two groups of users assess and perceive the
technology being tested or how they react to satisfying and dissatisfying use of that
particular technology. Finally, research using students as subjects has been conducted
in environments in which the use of technology is voluntary (Davis et al., 1989;
Mathieson, 1991; Taylor and Todd, 1995). However, many behaviours in organizations,
particularly those related to the use of technology, are not volitional (Ram and Jung,
1991). These possibilities suggest that the subject type could account for some variance
in the effect sizes of TAM variables.

Method type
An additional element reported in the literature that could account for variance in the
magnitude of the effect size is whether researchers use an experimental or survey
approach. Each approach has characteristics that could contribute to the variance
observed across estimates of relationship strength. Experiments, for example, can
control the level of the factors to which the participants are exposed and can offer the
control necessary to eliminate potential confounds. However, experiments compromise
on realism when they use fictitious stimuli under artificial conditions. A field-study
survey approach may offer less control over the assignment of subjects to the levels of
a factor but may be more realistic because it is based on real offerings under natural
technology usage conditions (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). The degree to which the
differences that characterize surveys and experiments bias estimates of association
will be examined explicitly in the meta-analysis presented in Part 2.

Type of technology tested

The IS literature suggests that the variation in technology/application type may
influence users’ frames of reference and thereby the meaning and scaling of TAM
constructs (Doll et al., 1998). Applications can be considered as “useful” if they
contribute to accomplishing the end-user’s purpose, and “easy to use” if the effort
required making use of the application is modest relative to the end-user’s frame of
reference. Goodhue and Thompson (1995) refer to purpose as the end-user’s task, and
argue that task characteristics (through system-task fit) influence user evaluations.
Cross-validation studies of the TAM have been careful to analyze responses
separately for each type of application, implicitly recognizing that there may
be difference across applications (Adams et al., 1992; Davis et al., 1989; Doll et al.,
1998). Four types of applications have been widely tested in the TAM
literature: communication systems, general purpose systems, office systems, and A meta-analysis
specialized systems (Lee et al., 2003b). These systems are used for different purposes of the TAM
(i.e. objectives) and differ in the efforts required to use them. The purpose of the
application or its comparative advantage (i.e. relative effort over alternative means of
meeting the user’s task requirement) may affect the user’s frame of reference (Doll et al.,
1998), i.e. PU or PEOU may not have the same meaning for specialized software as it
does for the internet. Similarly, that if the technology is inherently relatively easy to 271
use, PEOU will have less or no impact on usage (Subramanian, 1994).
Studying the moderating effect of technology type will be important for IS
researchers who are attempting to assess the overall value or impact of different form
of technologies, and will considerably widen the scope of application.

Measurement of usage
System usage is one of the most frequently proposed (DeLone and McLean, 1992) and
widely used measure of IS success in empirical MIS research (Zmud, 1979). The most
common forms of system usage measures found in the literature are subjective
(self-reported) and objective (actual usage or frequency recorded by the computerized
system) measures. Although most prior studies on the TAM relied on subjective
measures of technology usage, an objective measure has many advantages over a
self-reported measure. Objective measure can rule out the reporting biases due to
selective recall (Davis et al., 1992) and inaccurate estimation (Collopy, 1996).
Moreover, using objective measure avoids inherent methodological problems such as
common-method bias, hypothesis guessing, and indistinguishable causation,
associated with retrospective self-reported measures (Straub et al., 1995; Szajna, 1996).

References
Adams, D., Nelson, R. and Todd, P. (1992), “Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage of
information technology: a replication”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 227-47.
Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000), “Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption
and beliefs about information technology usage”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 665-94.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1997), “The role of innovation characteristics and perceived
voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 557-81.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998a), “The antecedents and consequents of user perceptions in IT
adoption”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998b), “A conceptual and operational definition of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 204-15.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1999), “Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new
information technologies?”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 361-91.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (2000), “A field study of the adoption of software process innovations
by information system professionals”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 295-308.
Agarwal, R., Prasad, J. and Zanino, M. (1996), “Training experiences and usage intentions: a field
study of a graphical interface”, Int’l Jr. of H-C Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 215-41.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
JM2 Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2,3
Al-Gahtani, S. (2001), “The applicability of TAM outside North America: an empirical test in the
United Kingdom”, Information Resources Mgmt. Jr., Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 37-46.
Al-Gahtani, S. and King, M. (1999), “Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: factors contributing to
each in the acceptance of IT”, Behaviour & IT, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 277-97.
272 Aladwani, A.M. (2002), “The development of two tools for measuring the easiness and usefulness
of transactional web sites”, European Jr. of IS, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 223-34.
Anandarajan, M., Simmers, C. and Igbaria, M. (2000a), “An exploratory investigation of the
antecedents and impact of internet usage”, Behaviour & IT, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Anandarajan, M., Igbaria, M. and Anakwe, U.P. (2000b), Technology acceptance in the banking
industry” Information Technology & People, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 298-312.
Anandarajan, M., Igbaria, M. and Anakwe, U.P. (2002), “IT acceptance in a less-developed
country”, Int’l Jr. of Info. Mgmt., Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 47-65.
Bajaj, A. and Nidumolu, S.R. (1998), “A feedback model to understand information system
usage”, Information & Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 213-24.
Benamati, J. and Rajkumar, T.M. (2002), “The application development outsourcing decision:
an application of the technology acceptance model”, Journal of Computer Information
Systems, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 35-43.
Bennett, P.D. and Harrell, G.D. (1975), “The role of confidence in understanding and predicting
buyers’ attitudes and purchase intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 110-7.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001), “An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce
service continuance”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 201-14.
Brosnan, M.J. (1999), “Modeling technophobia: a case for word processing”, Computers in Human
Behaviour, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-21.
Brown, S., Massey, A., Montoya-Weiss, M. and Burkman, J. (2002), “Do I really have to?”, User
acceptance of mandated technology. European Jr. of IS, Vol. 11, pp. 283-95.
Burnett, J.J. and Dunne, P.M. (1986), “An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing
research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 329-43.
Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959), “Convergent and discriminant validity by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 81-105.
Chau, P.K. (1996a), “An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 185-204.
Chau, P.K. (1996b), “An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by
system developers”, Information & Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 269-80.
Chau, P.K. (2001), “Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage behaviour”,
Journal of End User Computing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 26-33.
Chau, P.K. and Hu, P.J. (2001), “Information technology acceptance by individual professionals”,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 699-710.
Chau, P.K. and Hu, P.J. (2002a), “Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept
telemedicine technology”, Information & Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 297-311.
Chau, P.K. and Hu, P.J. (2002b), “Examining a model of information technology acceptance by
individual professionals”, Journal of MIS, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 191-229.
Chen, L., Gillenson, M. and Sherrell, D. (2002), “Enticing online consumers: an extended
technology acceptance perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 39, pp. 705-19.
Childers, T., Carr, C., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for A meta-analysis
online retail shopping behaviour”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-35.
of the TAM
Chin, W.W. (1996), “The measurement and measuring of IT usage: reconciling recent
discrepancies between self-reported and computer recorded usage”, IS Proceedings of the
24th Conference of Administrative Science Association of Canada, Montreal.
Chin, W.W. and Gopal, A. (1995), “Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs”,
The Data Base for Advances in IS, Vol. 26 Nos 2/3, pp. 42-63. 273
Chin, W. and Todd, P. (1995), “On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation
modelling in MIS research: a note of caution”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 237-46.
Choi, H., Choi, M., Yu, H. and Kim, J. (2003), “An empirical study on the adoption of information
appliances with a focus on interactive TV”, Telematics and Infomatics, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 161-83.
Cohon, J. and Cohon, P. (1975), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioural Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Collopy, F. (1996), “Bias in retrospective self-reports of time use: an empirical study of computer
users”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 758-67.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for
Field Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Dabholkar, P. and Bagozzi, R. (2002), “An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service:
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors”, Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-201.
Dasgupta, S., Granger, M. and McGarry, N. (2002), “User acceptance of e-collaboration
technology: an extension of the technology acceptance model”, Group Decisions and
Negotiations, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 87-100.
Davis, F. (1986), “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: theory and results”, Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of
Management, Cambridge, MA.
Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Davis, F. (1993), “User acceptance of computer technology: system characteristics, user
perceptions”, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 475-87.
Davis, F. and Venkatesh, V. (1996), “A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the
technology acceptance model: three experiments”, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 45
No. 1, pp. 19-45.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. and Warshaw, P. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14,
pp. 1111-32.
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.
Devraj, S., Fan, M. and Kohli, R. (2002), “Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and
preference”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 316-33.
Dias, D.D.S. (1998), “Managers’ motivation for using information technology”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 98 No. 7, pp. 338-42.
JM2 Dillon, T., Kuilboer, J., Quinn, J. and Garner, M. (1998), “Accounting student acceptance of tax
preparation software”, Journal of Accounting and Computers, Vol. 13, pp. 17-29.
2,3
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.
Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A. and Deng, X. (1998), “Using Davis’s perceived usefulness and
ease-of-use instrument for decision making: a confirmatory and multigroup invariance
274 analysis”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 839-69.
Featherman, M. and Pavlou, P. (2003), “Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets
perspective”, Int’l Jr. of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 451-74.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fry, J.N. (1971), “Personality variables and cigarette brand choice”, Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 8, pp. 298-304.
Gefen, D. (2000), “E-commerce the role of familiarity and trust”, Omega: The International
Journal of Management Science, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 725-37.
Gefen, D. (2003), “TAM or just plain habit: a look at experienced online shoppers”, Journal of End
User Computing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 1-13.
Gefen, D. and Keil, M. (1998), “The impact of developer responsiveness on perceptions of
usefulness and ease of use: extension of TAM”, The Data Base, Vol. 29, pp. 35-49.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (1997), “Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail:
an extension to the TAM”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 389-400.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2000), “The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in IS adoption:
a study of e-commerce adoption”, Journal of AIS, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-28.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003a), “Inexperience and experience with online
stores: the importance of TAM and trust”, IEEE, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 307-21.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003b), “Trust and TAM in online shopping:
an integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Gentry, L. and Calantone, R. (2002), “A comparison of three models to explain shop-bot use on the
web”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 945-56.
Ghiselli, E. (1960), “The prediction of predictability”, Education and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 20, pp. 3-8.
Ghiselli, E.E. (1963), “Moderating effects and differential reliability and validity”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 81-6.
Ghorab, K.E. (1997), “The impact of technology acceptance considerations on system usage, and
adopted level of technological sophistication: an empirical investigation”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 249-59.
Goodhue, D.L. and Thompson, R.L. (1995), “Task-technology fit and individual performance”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 213-36.
Green, C.W. (1998), “Normative influence on the acceptance of information technology –
measurement and effects”, Small Group Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 85-123.
Hackbarth, G., Grover, V. and Yi, M.Y. (2003), “Computer playfulness and anxiety: positive and
negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use”, Information
& Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 221-32.
Handy, J., Whiddett, R. and Hunter, I. (2001), “A technology acceptance model for
inter-organizational electronic medical system”, Australian Jr. of IS, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Hardgrave, B. and Johnson, R. (2003), “Towards an information systems development acceptance A meta-analysis
model: the case of object-oriented systems development”, IEEE, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 322-36.
of the TAM
Hardgrave, B., Davis, F. and Riemenschneider, C. (2003), “Investigating determinants of software
developers’ intentions to follow methodologies”, Journal of MIS, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 123-51.
Heijden, H. (2003), “Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in the
Netherlands”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 541-9.
Henderson, R. and Divett, M. (2003), “Perceived usefulness, ease of use and electronic 275
supermarket use”, Int’l Jr. of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 383-95.
Hendrickson, A.R. and Collins, M.R. (1996), “An assessment of structure and causation of is
usage”, The Data Base, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 61-7.
Hendrickson, A.R., Massey, P.D. and Cronan, T.P. (1993), “On the test-retest reliability of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scale”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 227-30.
Hobert, R. and Dunnette, M.D. (1967), “Development of moderator variables to enhance the
prediction of managerial effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 50-64.
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 MIS, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 97-124.
Horton, R.L. (1979), “Some relationships between personality and consumer decision-making”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 233-46.
Horton, R.P., Buck, T., Waterson, P.E. and Clegg, C.W. (2001), “Explaining intranet use with the
technology acceptance model”, Journal of IT, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 237-49.
Hu, P., Clark, T. and Ma, W. (2003), “Examining technology acceptance by school teachers:
a longitudinal study”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 227-41.
Hu, P.J., Chau, P.K., Liu Sheng, O.R. and Tam, K.Y. (1999), “Examining the TAM using physician
acceptance of technology”, Journal of MIS, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 91-112.
Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Igbaria, M. (1993), “User acceptance of microcomputer technology: an empirical test”, Omega,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 73-90.
Igbaria, M. (1994), “An examination of the factors contributing to microcomputer technology
acceptance”, Accounting Management and IT, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 205-24.
Igbaria, M. and Iivari, J. (1995), “The effect of self-efficacy on computer usage”, Omega, Vol. 23
No. 6, pp. 587-605.
Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G. (1995a), “Testing the determinants of microcomputer
usage via a structural equation model”, Journal of MIS, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 87-114.
Igbaria, M., Iivari, J. and Maragahh, H. (1995b), “Why do individuals use computer technology?”,
Information & Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 227-38.
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. and Baroudi, J. (1996), “A motivational model of microcomputer
usage”, Journal of MIS, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 127-43.
Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. and Cavaye, A. (1997), “Personal computing acceptance
factors in small firms: a structural equation model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 279-302.
Jackson, C., Chow, S. and Robert, A. (1997), “Towards an understanding of the behavioural
intention to use an IS”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 357-89.
JM2 Jiang, J., Hsu, M., Klein, G. and Binshan, L. (2000), “E-commerce user behaviour model:
an empirical study”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 265-76.
2,3
Karahanna, E. and Limayem, M. (2000), “E-mail and v-mail usage: generalizing across
technologies”, Jr. of org. computing and electronic commerce, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 49-66.
Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. (1999), “The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and
ease-of-use”, Information & Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 237-50.
276 Karahanna, E., Straub, D. and Chervany, N. (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.
Keil, M., Beranek, P. and Konsynski, B. (1995), “Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence
regarding task consideration”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 75-91.
Koufaris, M. (2002), “Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online
consumer behaviour”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 205-23.
Kucuk, S. and Arslan, M. (2000), “cross cultural comparison of consumers’ acceptance of the web
marketing facilities”, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 27-43.
Lederer, A., Maupin, D., Sena, M. and Zhuang, Y. (2000), “The technology acceptance model and
the www”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 269-82.
Lee, K. and Lee, S. (2003), “Cognitive map simulation approach to adjusting the design factors of
the electronic commerce web sites”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 1-11.
Lee, J-S., Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B. and Ingraffea, A. (2003a), “Technology acceptance and
social networking in distance learning”, Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 50-61.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A. and Larsen, K.R.T. (2003b), “The technology acceptance model: past, present,
and future”, Communications of the AIS, Vol. 12 No. 50, pp. 752-80.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1998), “Implementation characteristics of organizational innovations”,
Communication Research, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 603-31.
Liaw, S-S. (2002), “Understanding the perceptions of world wide web environment”, Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 137-48.
Liaw, S-S. and Huang, H-M. (2003), “An investigation of user attitudes towards search engines as
an information retrieval tool”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 751-65.
Lim, J. (2003), “Conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support systems”,
Information & Software Technology, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 469-77.
Lin, J.C. and Lu, H. (2000), “Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a
web site”, International Jr. of Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 197-208.
Loh, L. and Ong, Y-S. (1998), “The adoption of internet-based stock trading: a conceptual
framework and empirical results”, Journal of IT, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 81-94.
Lou, H., Luo, W. and Strong, D. (2000), “Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance”,
European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 91-103.
Lowry, G. (2002), “Modelling user acceptance of building management systems”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 695-705.
Lu, H-P. and Gustafson, D.H. (1994), “An empirical study of perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use on computerized support system use over time”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 317-29.
Lu, H-P. and Yeh, D-C. (1998), “Enterprises’ perception on business process re-engineering: a path
analytic model”, Omega, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 17-27.
Lu, H-P., Yu, H-J. and Lu, S.S.K. (2001), “The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS A meta-analysis
acceptance: an empirical study”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 131 No. 3,
pp. 649-63. of the TAM
Lu, J., Yu, C-S., Liu, C. and Yao, J.E. (2003), “Technology acceptance model for wireless internet”,
Internet Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 206-22.
Lucas, H.C. and Spitler, V.K. (1999), “Technology use and performance: a field study of broker
workstations”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 291-311. 277
Lucas, H.C. and Spitler, V. (2000), “Implementation in a world of workstations and networks”,
Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 119-28.
Ma, Q. and Liu, L. (2004), “The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical
findings”, Jr. of Org., End User Computing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Markus, M.L. (1983), “Power, politics, and MIS implementation”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 430-44.
Mathieson, K. (1991), “Predicting user intentions: comparing the TAM with the theory of planned
behaviour”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 173-91.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E. and Chin, W. (2001), “Extending the technology acceptance model:
the influence of user resources”, The DataBase, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 86-104.
Montazemi, A., Cameron, D. and Gupta, K. (1996), “An empirical study of factors affecting
software package selection”, Journal of MIS, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-105.
Moon, J.-W. and Kim, Y.-G. (2001), “Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context”,
Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 217-30.
Morris, M.G. and Dillon, A. (1997), “How user perceptions influence software use”, IEEE
Software, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 58-65.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
O’Cass, A. and Fenech, T. (2003), “Web retailing adoption: exploring the nature of internet users
web retailing behaviour”, Retailing & Consumer Service, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 81-94.
Olson, J.R. and Boyer, K.K. (2003), “Factors influencing the utilization of Internet purchasing in
small organizations”, Jr. of Operations Mgmt., Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 225-45.
Park, C. and Lessig, V. (1997), “Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to
reference group influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 102-10.
Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk
with the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 69-103.
Peters, W.S. and Champoux, J.E. (1979), “The use of moderated regressions in job redesign
relations”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 85-95.
Phelps, R. and Mok, M. (1999), “Managing the risks of intranet implementation: an empirical
study of user satisfaction”, Journal of IT, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Phillips, L., Calantone, A. and Lee, M-T. (1994), “International technology adoption: behaviour
structure, demand certainty and culture”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 16-29.
Pijpers, A., Bemelmans, T., Heemstra, F. and van Montfort, K. (2001), “Senior executives’ use of
information technology”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 43 No. 15, pp. 959-71.
Plouffe, R., Hulland, J. and Vandenbosch, M. (2001), “Richness versus parsimony in modeling
technology adoption decisions: understanding merchant adoption of a smart cart payment
system”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 208-22.
JM2 Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Jr. of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-44.
2,3 Ram, S. and Jung, H-S. (1991), “’Forced’ adoption of innovations in organizations: consequences
and implications”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-26.
Ridings, C.M. and Gefen, D. (2000), “Applying TAM to a parallel systems conversion strategy”,
Jr. of Information Technology Theory & Application, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
278 Riemenschneider, C.K. and Hardgrave, B.C. (2003), “Explaining software development tool use
with technology acceptance model”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 41
No. 4, pp. 1-8.
Riemenschneider, C.K., Hardgrave, B.C. and Davis, F.D. (2002), “Explaining software developer
acceptance of methodologies: a comparison of five theoretical models”, IEEE, Vol. 28
No. 12, pp. 1135-45.
Riemenschneider, C.K., Harrison, D.A. and Mykytyn, P.P. (2003), “Understanding IT adoption
decisions in small business: integrating current theories”, Information & Management,
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 269-85.
Roberts, P. and Henderson, R. (2000), “Information technology acceptance in a sample of
government employees”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 427-43.
Rose, G. and Straub, D. (1998), “Predicting general IT use: applying TAM to the Arabic world”,
Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 39-46.
Saunders, D.R. (1956), “Moderator variables in prediction”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 16, pp. 209-22.
Schaik, P.V. (1999), “Involving users in the specification of functionality using scenarios and
model-based evaluation”, Behaviour & IT, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 455-66.
Schaik, P., Bettany-Saltikov, J. and Warren, J. (2002), “Clinical acceptance of a low-cost portable
system for postural assessment”, Behaviour & IT, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 47-57.
Segars, A.H. and Grover, V. (1993), “Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness:
a confirmatory factor analysis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 517-27.
Selim, H.M. (2003), “An empirical investigation of students acceptance of course websites”,
Computers & Education, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 343-60.
Seyal, A., Abdul Rahman, M. and M. (2002), “Determinants of academic use of the internet:
a structural equation model”, Behaviour & IT, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 71-86.
Shah, I. (1968), Caravan of Dreams, Penguin, Baltimore.
Sharma, S., Durand, R.M. and Gur-Arie, O. (1981), “Identification and analysis of moderator
variables”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 291-300.
Shih, H-P. (2004), “An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the web”,
Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 351-69.
Stafford, M.R. and Stern, B. (2003), “Consumer bidding behaviour on internet auction sites”,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 135-50.
Straub, D.W. (1994), “The effect of culture on IT diffusion: email and fax in Japan and US”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 16-29.
Straub, D.W., Keil, M. and Brenner, W. (1997), “Testing the technology acceptance model across
cultures: a three country study”, Information & Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Straub, D., Limayem, M. and Karahanna, E. (1995), “Measuring system usage: implications for IS
theory testing”, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1328-42.
Subramanian, G.H. (1994), “A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use
measurement”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 25 Nos 5/6, pp. 863-74.
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2002), “Effect of trust on customer acceptance of internet banking”, Electronic A meta-analysis
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 1 Nos 3/4, pp. 247-63.
of the TAM
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2003), “The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the
acceptance of electronic commerce”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 135-61.
Sussman, S.W. and Siegel, W.S. (2003), “Informational influence in organizations: an integrated
approach to knowledge adoption”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 47-65. 279
Szajna, B. (1994), “Software evaluation & choice: predictive validation of the technology
acceptance instrument”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 319-24.
Szajna, B. (1996), “Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model”,
Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 85-92.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed., HarperCollins,
New York, NY.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P. (1995), “Understanding information technology usage: a test of
competing models”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 144-76.
Teo, T., Lim, V. and Lai, R. (1999), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet usage”, Omega,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Teo, H.-H., Chan, H.-C., Wei, K.-K. and Zhang, Z. (2003), “Evaluating information accessibility
and community adaptivity features for sustaining virtual learning communities”, Int’l Jr.
of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 672-97.
Thong, J., Hong, W. and Tam, K-R. (2002), “Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries:
what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual
differences?”, Int’l Jr. of H-C Studies, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 215-42.
Townsend, A., Demarie, S. and Hendrickson, A. (2001), “Desktop video conferencing in virtual
workgroups: anticipation, system evaluation and performance”, Information Systems
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 213-27.
van Dolen, W.M. and de Ruyter, K. (2002), “Moderated group chat: an empirical assessment of a
new e-service encounter”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 496-511.
Venkatesh, V. (1999), “Creation of favourable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic
motivation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 239-60.
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. 342-65.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (1996), “A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use:
development and test”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 451-81.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
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 behaviour”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 115-39.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C. and Morris, M.G. (2002), “User acceptance enablers in individual
decision making about technology: towards an integrated model”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. and Davis, F. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: towards a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 479-501.
JM2 Wiedenbeck, S. and Davis, S. (1997), “The influence of interaction style and experience on user
perceptions of software packages”, Int’l Jr. of H-C Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 563-88.
2,3 Wober, K. and Gretzel, U. (2000), “Tourism managers’ adoption of marketing decision support
systems’”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 172-81.
Yi, M.Y. and Hwang, Y. (2003), “Predicting the use of web-based information systems:
self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model”,
280 Int’l Jr. of H-C Studies, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 431-49.
Zedeck, S. (1971), “Problems with the use of ‘Moderator’ variables”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 76,
pp. 295-310.
Zmud, R.W. (1979), “Individual differences and MIS success: a review of the empirical literature”,
Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 966-79.

Further reading
Ajzen, I. and Madden, T.J. (1986), “Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: attitudes, intentions,
and perceived behavioural control”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 22
No. 5, pp. 453-74.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1982), “A field investigation of causal relations among cognitions, affect,
intentions, and behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 562-84.
Browne, M. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K. and
Long, J. (Eds), Testing Structural Eq. Models, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 136-62.
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.
Hage, J. and Aiken, M. (1970), Social Change in Complex Organizations, Random House,
New York. NY.
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. and Jackson, G.B. (1982), Meta-Analysis: Calculating Research Findings
Across Studies, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Corresponding author
Shumaila Y. Yousafzai can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.