Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013

Long paper

Abstract

With the ever-increasing development of technology and its integration into users’ private and professional life, a decision regarding its acceptance or rejection still remains an open question. A respectable amount of work dealing with the technology acceptance model (TAM), from its first appearance more than a quarter of a century ago, clearly indicates a popularity of the model in the field of technology acceptance. Originated in the psychological theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior, TAM has evolved to become a key model in understanding predictors of human behavior toward potential acceptance or rejection of the technology. The main aim of the paper is to provide an up-to-date, well-researched resource of past and current references to TAM-related literature and to identify possible directions for future TAM research. The paper presents a comprehensive concept-centric literature review of the TAM, from 1986 onwards. According to a designed methodology, 85 scientific publications have been selected and classified according to their aim and content into three categories such as (i) TAM literature reviews, (ii) development and extension of TAM, and (iii) modification and application of TAM. Despite a continuous progress in revealing new factors with significant influence on TAM’s core variables, there are still many unexplored areas of model potential application that could contribute to its predictive validity. Consequently, four possible future directions for TAM research based on the conducted literature review and analysis are identified and presented.

Keywords

Technology acceptance model (TAM) Literature review Development and extension Modification and application 

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal, R., Prasad, J.: The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decis. Sci. 28(3), 557–582 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ajzen, I.: From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J. (eds.) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Springer, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1980)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amoako-Gyampah, K.: Perceived usefulness, user involvement and behavioral intention: an empirical study of ERP implementation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 1232–1248 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amoako-Gyampah, K., Salam, A.F.: An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Inf. Manag. 41(6), 731–745 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 2904–2927 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barki, H., Hartwick, J.: User participation, conflict, and conflict resolution: the mediation roles of influence. Inf. Syst. Res. 5(4), 422–438 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown, S.A., Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Burkman, J.R.: Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 11(4), 283–295 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burton-Jones, A., Hubona, G.S.: The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43, 706–717 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castaneda, J.A., Munoz-Leiva, F., Luque, T.: Web acceptance model (WAM): moderating effects of user experience. Inf. Manag. 44, 384–396 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan, S., Lu, M.: Understanding internet banking adoption and use behavior: a Hong Kong perspective. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 12(3), 21–43 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charness, N., Boot, W.R.: Aging and information technology use: potential and barriers. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18(5), 253–258 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chau, P.Y.K.: An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by systems developers. Inf. Manag. 30, 269–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chau, P.Y.K., Hu, P.: Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Inf. Manag. 39(4), 297–311 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheung, R., Vogel, D.: Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: an extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Comput. Educ. 63, 160–175 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chiou, W.-C., Lin, C–.C., Perng, C.: A strategic framework for website evaluation based on a review of the literature from 1995–2006. Inf. Manag. 47, 282–290 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chow, M., Herold, D.K., Choo, T.-M., Chan, K.: Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Comput. Educ. 59, 1136–1144 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chuttur, M.Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: origins, developments and future directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, vol. 9, no. 37, pp. 1–21. Indiana University, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, F.D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Doctoral dissertation. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–339 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of computer technology: system characteristics, user perceptions. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 38(3), 475–487 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22(14), 11–32 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davis, F.D., Venkatesh, V.: A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 45(1), 19–45 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davis, F.D., Venkatesh, V.: Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 51(1), 31–46 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dishaw, M.T., Strong, D.M.: Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Inf. Manag. 36, 9–21 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Farahat, T.: Applying the technology acceptance model to online learning in the Egyptian Universities. Procedia Soc. Behav Sci 64, 95–104 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Featherman, M.S., Pavlou, P.A.: Predicting E-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59(4), 451–474 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gefen, D.: What makes an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile: linking trust mechanisms and ERP usefulness. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 21(1), 263–288 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Inexperience and experience with online stores: the importance of TAM and trust. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 50(3), 307–321 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: Gender difference in the perception and use of E-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Q. 21(4), 389–400 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gong, M., Xu, Y., Yu, Y.: An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based learning. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 15(4), 365–374 (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gumussoy, C.A., Calisir, F., Bayram, A.: Understanding the behavioral intention to use ERP systems: an extended technology acceptance model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 2024–2030 (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hardgrave, B.C., Davis, F.D., Riemenschneider, C.K.: Investigating determinants of software developers’ intentions to follow methodologies. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 20(1), 123–151 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hong, W., Thong, J.Y.L., Wong, W., Tam, K.: Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: an empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18(3), 97–124 (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Horton, R.P., Buck, T., Waterson, P.E., Clegg, C.W.: Explaining intranet use with the technology acceptance model. J Inf. Technol. 16(4), 237–249 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hrastinski, S., Keller, C.: An examination of research approaches that underlie research on educational technology: a review from 2000 to 2004. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 36(2), 175–190 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hsiao, C.H., Yang, C.: The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: a co-citation analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 31, 128–136 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hu, P.J., Chau, P.Y.K., Sheng, O.R.L., Tam, K.Y.: Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 16(2), 91–112 (1999)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hu, P.J., Lin, C., Chen, H.: User acceptance of intelligence and security informatics technology: a study of COPLINK. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56(3), 235–244 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Huang, E.: The acceptance of women-centric websites. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 45(4), 75–83 (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Huang, J.-H., Lin, Y.-R., Chuang, S.-T.: Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: a perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. Electron. Libr. 25(5), 585–598 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Huang, L.J., Lu, M.T., Wong, B.K.: The impact of power distance on Email acceptance: evidence from the PRC. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 44(1), 93–101 (2003)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Igbaria, M., Iivari, J., Maragahh, H.: Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study. Inf. Manag. 29(5), 227–238 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jackson, C.M., Chow, S., Leitch, R.A.: Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decis. Sci. 28(2), 357–389 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., Chervany, N.L.: Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 23(2), 183–213 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    King, W.R., He, J.: A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43, 740–755 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee, D.Y., Lehto, M.R.: User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Comput. Educ. 61, 193–208 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee, S., Kim, B.: Factors affecting the usage of intranet: a confirmatory study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25(1), 191–201 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lee, W., Xiong, L., Hu, C.: The effect of Facebook users’ arousal and valence on intention to go to the festival: applying an extension of the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 31, 819–827 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A., Larsen, K.R.T.: The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12(50), 752–780 (2003)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P.: Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 40, 191–204 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Liaw, S.S., Huang, H.M.: An investigation of user attitudes toward search engines as an information retrieval tool. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19(6), 751–765 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lin, F., Wu, J.: An empirical study of end-user computing acceptance factors in small and medium enterprises in Taiwan: analyzed by structural equation modelling. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 44(3), 98–108 (2004)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lu, J., Yu, C.-S., Liu, C., Yao, J.E.: Technology acceptance model for wireless internet. Internet Res. 13(3), 206–223 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lucas, H.C., Spitler, V.K.: Technology use and performance: a field study of broker workstations. Decis. Sci. 30(2), 291–311 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mathieson, K.: Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 2(3), 173–191 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., Chinn, W.C.: Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 32(3), 86–112 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Melas, C.D., Zampetakis, L.A., Dimopoulou, A., Moustakis, V.: Modeling the acceptance of clinical information systems among hospital medical staff: an extended TAM model. J. Biomed. Inform. 44, 553–564 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Moon, J.W., Kim, Y.G.: Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf. Manag. 38(4), 217–230 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nasri, W., Charfeddine, L.: Factors affecting the adoption of Internet banking in Tunisia: an integration theory of acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 23, 1–14 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Oh, S., Ang, J., Kim, B.: Adoption of broadband internet in Korea: the role of experience in building attitudes. J. Inf. Technol. 18(4), 267–280 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Padilla-Meléndez, A., Aguila-Obra, A., Garrido-Moreno, A.: Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Comput. Educ. 63, 306–317 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pai, F.-Y., Huang, K.-I.: Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78, 650–660 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Park, N., Lee, K.M., Cheong, P.H.: University instructors’ acceptance of electronic courseware: an application of the technology acceptance model. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 13, 163–186 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pavlou, P.A.: Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7(3), 101–134 (2003)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Plouffe, C.R., Hulland, J.S., Vandenbosch, M.: Research report: richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions-understanding merchant adoption of a smart card based payment system. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(2), 208–222 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Saadé, R.G., Kira, D.: The emotional state of technology acceptance. Issues Inf. Sci. Inf. Technol. 3, 529–539 (2006)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Schepers, J., Wetzels, M.: A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Inf. Manag. 44, 90–103 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Serenko, A.: A model of user adoption of interface agents for email notification. Interact. Comput. 20, 461–472 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sharp, J.H.: Development, extension, and application: a review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Educ. J. 5(9), 1–11 (2007)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Shih, H.: Extended technology acceptance model of internet utilization behavior. Inf. Manag. 41(6), 719–729 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Son, H., Park, Y., Kim, C., Chou, J.-S.: Toward an understanding of construction professionals’ acceptance of mobile computing devices in South Korea: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Autom. Constr. 28, 82–90 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Straub, D., Keil, M., Brenner, W.: Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study. Inf. Manag. 33(1), 1–11 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sun, H., Zhang, P.: The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 64, 53–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Szajna, B.: Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Manag. Sci. 42(1), 85–92 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tao, Y.-H., Cheng, C.-J., Sun, S.-Y.: What influences college students to continue using business simulation games? The Taiwan experience. Comput. Educ. 53, 929–939 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Taylor, S., Todd, P.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6(2), 144–176 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., Budgen, D.: Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 463–479 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Van der Heijden, H.: User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q. 28(4), 695–704 (2004)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Venkatesh, V.: Creation of favorable user perceptions exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Q. 23(2), 239–260 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11(4), 342–365 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A model of antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis. Sci. 27(3), 451–481 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G.: Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q. 24(1), 115–139 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., Davis, F.: User acceptance of information technology: towards a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 479–501 (2003)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., Head, M.: Computer use by older adults: a multi-disciplinary review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 870–882 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wixom, B.H., Todd, P.A.: A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf. Syst. Res. 16(1), 85–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wu, C.-S., Cheng, F–.F., Yen, D.C., Huang, Y.-W.: User acceptance of wireless technology in organizations: a comparison of alternative models. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 33, 50–58 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Wu, K., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Tan, X., Zheng, H.: A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 31(6), 572–581 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Yi, M.Y., Hwang, Y.: Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59(4), 431–449 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Yu, C.-S., Liu, C., Yao, J.E.: Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Res 13(3), 206–222 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Zhang, S., Zhao, J., Tan, W.: Extending TAM for online learning systems: an intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 13(3), 312–317 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of SplitSplitCroatia

Personalised recommendations