Impact of UTAUT/UTAUT2 Motives on Intention to Use Deal Sites

Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 9)

Abstract

Deal sites, in different forms, exist for more than a decade. Although the industry is mature, there is only a limited number of papers investigating deal sites adoption and use from a customer perspective. Most of the research published on the topic is rather exploratory than using existing theories. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is an information systems theory that explains adoption and continued usage behavior. There already exists the second version of the theory. The aim of this research is to test if UTAUT and UTAUT2 motives influence intention to use deal sites. As it is a preliminary study, only four core UTAUT and core seven UTUAT2 (a superset of UTAUT) motives are investigated, not factors moderating the core motives. Data were collected in Denmark, and they are analyzed using multiple linear regression. Considering only UTAUT motives, only performance expectancy was found to significantly influence intention to use deal sites. Considering UTAUT2 motives, besides performance expectancy, also price value, and habit were found to significantly influence intention to use deal sites.

Keywords

Deal sites Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 

References

  1. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baroudi, J. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1989). The problem of statistical power in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelman, B., Jaffe, S., & Kominers, S. D. (2016). To Groupon or not to Groupon: The profitability of deep discounts. Marketing Letters, 27(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedman, E., & Resnick, P. (2001). The social cost of cheap pseudonyms. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(2), 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grosova, S. (2002). Marketing: Principy, postupy, metody. Praha: University of Chemistry and Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Hu, M., & Winer, R. S. (2017). The “tipping point” feature of social coupons: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 120–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, M. W. (2010). Seizing the white space: Business model innovation for growth and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kumar, V., & Rajan, B. (2012a). The perils of social coupon campaigns. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 13–14.Google Scholar
  13. Kumar, V., & Rajan, B. (2012b). Social coupons as a marketing strategy: A multifaceted perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 120–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Linder, J., & Cantrell, S. (2000). Changing business models: Surfing the landscape. Cambridge, MA: Accenture Institute for Strategic Change.Google Scholar
  15. Lunden, I. (2015). Groupon exits Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland in ongoing global retreat. Accessed August 1, 2017, from https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/17/groupons-global-closures-continue-with-sweden-denmark-norway-and-finland-all-shut-down/
  16. Lunden, I. (2016). Groupon is buying LivingSocial, plans to downsize business to 15 markets from 27. Accessed August 1, 2017, from https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/26/groupon-is-buying-livingsocial-plans-to-downsize-business-to-15-markets-from-27/
  17. Luo, X., Andrews, M., Song, Y., & Aspara, J. (2014). Group-buying deal popularity. Journal of Marketing, 78(2), 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakhata, C., & Kuo, H. C. (2017). Consumer avoidance of specially priced items during social coupon redemption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 287–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Petter, S., deLone, W., & McLean, E. R. (2013). Information systems success: The quest for the independent variables. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 7–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sudzina, F. (2015a). Do gender and personality traits influence awareness of deal sites? In R. Nemec & F. Zapletal (Eds.), The 11th international conference on strategic management and its support by information systems (pp. 304–308). Uherské Hradiště: VŠB–Technical University of Ostrava.Google Scholar
  22. Sudzina, F. (2015b). Do gender and personality traits influence use of deal sites? In P. Doucek, G. Chroust, & V. Oskrdal (Eds.), IDIMT-2015, information technology and society (pp. 133–138). Podebrady: Trauner Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Sudzina, F. (2016a). Do gender and personality traits influence frequency of use of deal sites? In J. Versendaal, C. Kittl, A. Pucihar, & M. K. Borstnar (Eds.), 29th bled eConference: Digital economy (pp. 266–274). Kranj: University of Maribor.Google Scholar
  24. Sudzina, F. (2016b). Validation of UTAUT and UTAUT2 scales for deal sites. In J. Skrbek, D. Nejedlova, & T. Semeradova (Eds.), Liberec informatics forum 2016: ICT in the role of services - state of the art and perspectives (pp. 121–129). Liberec: Technical University of Liberec.Google Scholar
  25. Sudzina, F., & Pavlicek, A. (2017a). Do gender and personality traits influence use of deal sites? A replication. In R. Nemec & L. Chytilova (Eds.), The 12th international conference on strategic management and its support by information systems (pp. 112–119). Ostrava: VŠB–Technical University of Ostrava.Google Scholar
  26. Sudzina, F., & Pavlicek, A. (2017b). Do gender and personality traits influence visits of and purchases at deal sites? In P. Doucek, G. Chroust, & V. Oskrdal (Eds.), IDIMT–2017, digitalization in management, society and economy (pp. 189–194). Podebrady: Trauner Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Taran, Y., Nielsen, C., Montemari, M., Thomsen, P. P., & Paolone, F. (2016). Business model configurations: A five V framework to map out potential innovation routes. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(4), 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets, 8(2), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of Chemistry and TechnologyPrahaCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Business and ManagementAalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations