Looking Inside The "It Black Box": Technological Effects On It Usage

Looking Inside the IT Black Box:
Technological Effects on IT Usage

Yuan Sun
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Hangzhou, China 310018
ABSTRACT
Prior research suggests the need to incorporate the information
technology (IT) artifact within extant theories of IT usage, yet
little progress has been made to that end. This study addresses
this gap by incorporating the nature and purpose of the IT artifact
in terms of four characteristics: utilitarian value, hedonic value,
communication value, and technical complexity. The moderating
effects of these characteristics on individual-level IT usage were
tested using a meta-analysis method. Our findings demonstrate
how incorporating such variables can provide a richer and more
nuanced understanding of IT usage than that offered by generic
models of IT usage.
Keywords: IT Usage, IT Acceptance, Meta-Analysis, Tech
nology Effects, IT artifact
INTRODUCTION
In a 2001 commentary, Orlikowski and Iacono lamented that
the field of information systems (IS), which is premised on
the centrality of information technology in everyday life, has
not deeply engaged its core subject matter the information
technology (IT) artifact [116, p. 121]. The authors observed
that IS research has tended to focus on the context within which
IT is used, the processing capabilities of the IT, or its impact on
individual or organizational performance, but the technology
itself has generally remained unspecified, taken for granted,
unexamined, and under-theorized. Orlikowski and Iacono
suggested that if IS research is to make a significant contribution
to understanding a world increasingly suffused with ubiquitous,
interdependent, and emergent IT, IS researchers must theorize IT
artifacts and incorporate these ideas within our current theories in
IS research.
In a similar vein, Benbasat and Zmud [17, p. 183] opined that
the IS research community is making the disciplines central
identity ambiguous by, all too frequently, under-investigating
phenomena intimately associated with IT based systems, and
suggested that for the discipline to establish a central character
and identity, IS researchers should pay closer attention to the
IT artifact and its immediate nomological net. While prior IT
usage research has examined usage as one component of Benbasat and Zmud [17]s immediate nomological net, the IT
artifact itself has been lacking from such research. For instance,
IT usage research has examined a wide range of technologies,
such as word processing software [36], electronic mail [35],
spreadsheets [106], microcomputers [63], world wide web [3],
expert system [73], debugging software [15], telemedicine
[25], group support system [71], enterprise resource planning
system [59], computerized physician order entry systems [18],
online social networking [77], mobile technology [150] and
etc. However, these studies have not differentiated between

Winter 2014
Anol Bhattacherjee
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida 33647
technologies, but instead, relied on user perceptions of technologies (such as their perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use) as proxies to explain their usage across organizational
settings. Certainly, it makes a difference to a studys findings if
the technology under consideration is a spreadsheet or an enterprise resource planning system. A few studies, such as Venkatesh et al. [161], have pooled together different user groups (line
staff, financial analysts, accountants) in different organizations
and their perceptions of different technologies, such as online
meeting manager, product information system, portfolio analyzer,
and bookkeeping systems, for analysis of IT usage, further
abstracting from the IT artifact and making it further difficult to
isolate the individual effects of IT.
The lack of emphasis on the IT artifact in prior usage research
may be due to IT usage researchers over-reliance on social
psychology theories, such as the theory of reasoned action [42]
and the theory of planned behavior [7], which are generalized
theories of human behavior rather than theories of IT and
hence are not designed to explore technological differences.
Models of IT usage derived from such theories, such as the
technology acceptance model (TAM) [36] and the unified theory
of acceptance and usage of technology (UTAUT) [161], inherit
the limitations (i.e., lack of attention to technological details)
of their parent theories. Although these theories have provided
a generalized understanding of IT usage, explaining about 5060% of ones intention to use IT and 30-35% of their actual
usage behavior (e.g., [161]), they are often unable to explain
why some technologies are more accepted than others within
the same user population or why the same technology engenders different adoption patterns across different usage contexts
([82], [145]). We believe that incorporating technological
differences can help provide a more comprehensive understanding and build richer theories of IT usage than that accorded by
extant usage models.
This study attempts to delve into the IT artifact and its
relationship to IT usage, and incorporate IT characteristics within
our current theories of IT usage. It departs from the existing
tradition of treating IT as a black box, but rather seeks a
nuanced understanding of how technological differences shape
our IT usage patterns. We employ a meta-analytic technique
to investigate our problem of interest, because such technique
helps us take advantage of a large body of existing empirical
research on IT usage across a range of different technologies and
examine differences in effects potentially caused by technological
differences.
The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. The next section
presents prior meta-analytic findings of IT usage research. The
third section describes the theoretical rationale for our postulated
effects of IT characteristics. The fourth section describes our
meta-analytic methods, including sample selection and coding
process. The fifth section presents data analysis and findings. The
Journal of Computer Information Systems
final section ends with the studys limitations, its implications for
research and practice, and concluding remarks.
PRIOR RESEARCH
Meta-analysis refers to the statistical integration of quantitative
results from independent studies [69]. It is a quantitative,
rigorous, and more precise alternative to traditional or narrative
literature reviews, because it takes into consideration sample
size and effect size differences across studies. By aggregating
findings across studies, meta-analysis allows reconciliation of
previously inconsistent results and generates a holistic view of the
overall landscape of research results. Meta-analysis can involve
exploratory analysis by permitting the search for moderator
variables, or can be used in a confirmatory manner for hypotheses
testing.
A literature review identified ten prior meta-analytic studies
on IT usage. Legris et al. [95] reviewed 22 empirical studies to
validate the structural relationships between key TAM constructs,
but found correlation matrices in only three of these studies,
which greatly limited the scope and interpretation of their results.
Ma and Liu [104] examined zero-order correlations between
three TAM constructs perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and technology acceptance in 26 empirical papers. Their
meta-analysis reconfirmed the causal relationships expected from
TAM constructs, and noted that some of the differential findings
across studies was due to differences in measurement items
resulting from adapting TAM to different technologies. However,
neither of these two studies examined the issue of technological
differences.
King and He [82] conducted a meta-analysis of 88 TAM articles
and found TAM to be a robust model, although considerable
variability in correlations was observed across studies. A
moderator analysis involving user types (students, professionals,
and general) and usage types (job related use, office use, general
use, and Internet/electronic commerce use) as moderators found
no differential effects across usage types, and that students were
reasonable surrogates for working professionals but not for
general users (e.g., home users). Schepers and Wetzels [131]
conducted a meta-analysis of 51 TAM articles to investigate the
overall influence of subjective norm on TAM constructs, and
explored three additional moderators: respondent type (students
versus non-students), technology complexity (low versus high),
and respondent culture (Western versus non-Western). Results
indicated a significant influence of subjective norm on perceived
usefulness and intention to use IT, and that all three moderators had
significant effects on traditional TAM associations. Yousafzai et al.
[173] used meta analysis method to investigate four moderators:
subject type (students versus non-students), method type (lab
study versus field study), technology type (communications
systems versus general purpose systems versus office systems
versus specialized systems) and usage type (self-reported versus
measured) and found that all four moderators had significant
effects on TAM relationships . Wu and Lederer [169] conducted
a meta-analysis of 71 empirical studies to investigate the impact
of environment-based voluntariness on the relationships among
four TAM constructs, and found that voluntariness moderates
the effects of ease of use and usefulness on behavioral intention,
but not their effects on actual usage. Turner et al. [155] reported,
following a literature review and a vote-counting meta-analysis,
that behavioral intention is correlated with actual usage, but
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are not correlated

with actual usage. umak et al. [143] conducted a meta-analysis of

e-learning technology acceptance and demonstrated a moderating
effect for user-related factors (employees versus students versus
teachers/professors) and technology-related factors (e-learning
system versus other technology/tool) for several evaluated causal
paths. Wu et al. [170] examined the impact of trust on TAM
constructs and the moderating effects of subject type (students
versus non-students) and context type (commercial versus noncommercial), and found these effects to be significant for most
pair-wise relationships. Lastly, Zhang et al. [174] reported that
culture (eastern versus western) also has moderating effects
within the context of mobile commerce adoption.
The above meta-analyses indicate the presence of significant
moderating effects of individual differences (e.g., student versus
non-students, Western versus non-Western users), technologyrelated factors (e.g. technology complexity, technology type),
and the context of use (e.g., voluntary versus mandatory) on
traditional associations expected from extant IT usage theories
such as TAM. However, none of the above studies systematically
explored technological characteristics that are at the core of
the IT artifact. Furthermore, by virtue of their focus on TAM,
these meta-analyses have ignored non-TAM constructs, such as
perceived behavioral control and perceived enjoyment that are
also known to influence IT usage intention and/or behavior in
specific contexts.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
In theorizing the IT artifact, we first examine the purpose and
nature of IT. Orlikowski and Iacono [116] suggest that IT artifacts
are not just objects neutral, universal, or given. Rather, these
artifacts are designed, constructed, and used by people, and hence,
embed the interests, values, and assumptions of their developers,
implementers, and users. It is important to disentangle the purpose
and nature of IT artifacts if we are to better appreciate their usage
patterns. Traditional IT usage research has taken a proxy view
of IT [116], focusing on user perceptions of a technology, such as
its usefulness or ease of use, as the primary basis of understanding
user behavior. However, drawing from Kling and Scacchi [84] s
seminal work on the web of computing, Orlikowski and Iacono
[116] advocate an ensemble view of IT, where technologies
are seen as evolving systems (or tools) enmeshed within the
conditions of its use in a dynamic and social system.
IT may serve different purposes in our personal, social, and
work lives. Some IT such as office applications and work-related
systems help improve our work productivity or performance,
while others such as online video games are meant to derive
personal enjoyment, and still others such as electronic mail or
videoconferencing are designed to improve our communication
or collaboration with others. Hence, IT can be viewed in terms of
their utilitarian, hedonic, or communication value. Of course, some
technologies may serve multiple purposes. For instance, gamebased training [162], personal digital assistants [141], and personal
computers for home use [20] can help improve work performance,
while simultaneously being a source of entertainment. Likewise,
group support systems [27] facilitate work group performance by
enabling group members communicate and collaborate with each
other, and hence provide utilitarian and communication value.
Note that utilitarian, hedonic, or communication are not different
types of IT, but rather, they are different value dimensions that can
be embedded into the same IT. Although there may be additional
reasons of IT usage, utilitarian, hedonic, and communication value
Winter 2014
users enjoyment or their communication

or collaboration with others. Although
perceived usefulness may have a strong
effect on usage intention for IT with more
utilitarian value, this association will tend to
be weaker for less utilitarian technologies.
Moon and Kim [110] compared two groups
of users who viewed the World Wide Web
as a work-oriented versus an entertainmentoriented technology, and observed that
perceived usefulness had a stronger effect on
usage intention for those users who viewed
the Web as a work-related technology than
those who viewed it as an entertainmentrelated technology. This expectation leads
us to hypothesize:
H1. The effect of perceived usefulness
on IT usage intention is stronger
for IT with high utilitarian value
than for those with low utilitarian
value.
Figure 1: Core IT Usage Model
appears to be the three predominant reasons for contemporary
IT usage.
In explicating the effects of an ITs technological characteristics,
we start with an extended version of UTAUT a comprehensive
generic model of IT usage (see Figure 1). Although UTAUT does
not include perceived enjoyment, we include this construct in our
model because user enjoyment seem to be a key usage driver of
many IT today (e.g., Internet). In their motivational model of IT
usage, Davis et al. [37] noted that both perceived enjoyment and
perceived usefulness are salient to influencing users IT usage
intention, as intrinsic and extrinsic motivations respectively.
Similarly, van der Heijden [156] demonstrated the importance
of perceived enjoyment in IT usage in their study. In addition,
Venkatesh and Davis [159] theorized and validated that subjective
norm has a direct effect on perceived usefulness, and hence, this
effect is also included in our core model. Other constructs and
associations in this model are well-known from UTAUT (e.g., see
Venkatesh et al. [2003]), and are not discussed here to conserve
space.
Utilitarian Value. Despite the varying types and purpose of IT,
prior research has viewed IT as a primarily utilitarian tool intended
to improve user performance and productivity in the workplace.
This utilitarian value of IT, from the users perspective, is captured
in TAMs perceived usefulness construct, defined as the degree
to which a person believes that using a particular technology will
enhance his performance [36, p. 320]. Other theories of IT usage
have employed similar constructs, such as outcome expectations
in the computer self-efficacy model [30], extrinsic motivation
in the motivational model [37], relative advantage in innovation
diffusion theory [111], and performance expectancy in UTAUT
[161].
TAM-based research suggests that users perceived usefulness
is the strongest and most consistent predictor of their IT usage
intentions in the workplace. However, not all IT today are designed
to enhance users performance. Instead, some technologies
serve hedonic and communication purposes, such as enhancing

Winter 2014
Hedonic Value. IT that is more hedonic

in nature is directed at different outcomes
such as personal enjoyment or pleasure.
Such hedonic IT can also have an utilitarian or communication
value component [e.g., 145]. In a study of consumer acceptance
of a Dutch movie web site (a primarily hedonic system), van der
Heijden [156] found that perceived enjoyment and perceived
ease of use demonstrated stronger effects on usage intention than
perceived usefulness. The rationale for such associations was
derived from Decis [38] motivational theory that distinguishes
between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as two alternate
drivers of human behavior. In the IT usage context, extrinsic
motivation refers to expectations of benefits external to the
system-user interaction, such as increased job performance,
while intrinsic motivation refers to the rewards derived from the
system interaction per se, such as having a fun experience. While
perceived usefulness, as a measure of extrinsic motivation, may
be expected to be a dominant predictor of usage intention for
IT that is high in utilitarian value, perceived enjoyment, which
captures intrinsic motivation, would tend to dominate intention
for IT that is high in hedonic value. Hence, we hypothesize:
H2. The effect of perceived enjoyment on IT usage intention
is stronger for IT with high hedonic value than for
those with low hedonic value.
TAM defines perceived ease of use as the degree to which a
person believes that using a particular system would be free of
effort and theorizes a positive relationship between this construct
and IT usage intention [35, p. 320]. However, this relationship is
empirically found to be inconsistent (see [161]). Van der Heijden
[156] contends that perceived ease of use focuses on the nature
of the user-system interaction and not on objectives external to
this interaction. In the case of IT that is predominantly utilitarian,
the user-system interaction is subordinate to the achievement of
external goals such as work performance, and hence, perceived
ease of use is less central to predicting usage intentions. However,
in the case of IT that is mostly hedonic, achievement of external
goals is subordinate to using the system, and hence the effort
needed to use a system assumes a more central role in shaping user

intentions. Such an explanation is consistent with prior studies
that report perceived ease of use to be a significant and strong
predictor of intention for Internet usage [e.g., 14, 110, 152], but
not for office automation and work-related IT usage (e.g., [36]).
Hence, we propose:
H3. The effect of perceived ease of use on IT usage intention
is stronger for IT with high hedonic value than for
those with low hedonic value.
Communication Value. Communication-oriented technologies,
such as groupware, e-mail, and video-conferencing systems,
are those that facilitate communication, cooperation, and
collaboration among a group of users. Such technologies may
be used in work settings (e.g., group support system), where
they may also have utilitarian value by improving group productivity or decision making, or in personal social settings (e.g.,
online social networks like Facebook) for entertainment value.
Nonetheless, communication-oriented IT is unique in its reliance
on a network of users to motivate user intentions and behaviors.
For instance, users are unlikely to use such IT if they cannot use it
to communicate or interact with their peers, colleagues, or social
group, irrespective of its utilitarian or hedonic value. Likewise,
their social group may also exert overt influence on users usage
of such IT more so than for IT that is primarily utilitarian or
hedonic in nature.
The notion of social influence is captured in the theory
of reasoned actions subjective norm construct, defined as a
persons perception that most people who are important to him
think he should or should not perform the behavior in question
[42]. In the case of IT that is mostly utilitarian, subjective
norm has been found to have a mixed influence on IT usage
intention, causing Davis et al. [36] to drop this construct from
their formulation of TAM. However, Davis et al. suggested that
the lack of predictive ability of subjective norm may be related
to the specific IT examined in their study word processing
and graphics packages which are meant for personal use, and
hence less driven by social influence. This effect may however
be more salient for communication-oriented IT such as e-mail,
project management, and groupware, where prior adopters of
that technology have an incentive to enlist more users in order
to expand their own communication and collaboration network,
and therefore may promote that IT to their peers, friends, and
referent groups by sharing their experience with and offering help
to potential adopters [145].
Prior innovation diffusion research has demonstrated that
communication and social influence from prior adopters are
primary drivers of new innovation adoption among later adopters
[124]. Communication from prior adopters help persuade potential
users of the utilitarian value of a communication-oriented IT,
thereby influencing their IT usage intention via their perceived
usefulness beliefs while social influence help later adopters
identify with their social group, even if they are not convinced of
the instrumentality of the IT.
Additional support for the direct and indirect (mediated
by perceived usefulness) effects of subjective norm on usage
intention comes from Kelmans [74] work on the socio-cognitive
processes of attitude change. Kelman described three processes
by which norms are presumed to influence behaviors: compliance,
identification, and internalization. Compliance occurs when
people accept others influence in order to achieve favorable

reactions (such as social approval) or avoid unfavorable reactions (such as abandonment) from their referent groups.
Identification occurs when they accept influence because they
wish to establish or maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship with their respective groups by engaging in the same behavior as their referents. Internalization occurs when they accept
influence because the content of the induced behavior is congruent with their value system and is therefore intrinsically
rewarding. While identification and internalization alter users
belief structure, compliance causes them to directly alter their
intention in response to the social pressure. Subjective norm
is therefore expected to have a direct effect on usage intention
by virtue of the compliance effect, as well as an indirect
effect mediated by perceived usefulness via identification and
internalization effects. In light of the above discussion, we
hypothesize:
H4. The effect of subjective norm on IT usage intention is
stronger for IT with high communication value than
for those with low communication value.
H5. The effect of subjective norm on perceived usefulness
is stronger for IT with high communication than for
that with low communication value.
Technology Complexity. Another IT attribute that has been
examined to some degree in the IT usage literature is technology complexity, defined as the extent to which an IT is easy
or difficult to use. Prior research has examined complexity
as a perceptual construct (i.e., inverse of perceived ease of
use). However, IT complexity can also be viewed as a technological attribute, which may subsequently shape individual
perceptions of this construct. While explaining the observed
non-significant effect of perceived ease of use on IT usage intention, Subramanian [142] suggested that this non-significance
may be due to the specific IT investigated in their study voice
mail and customer dial-up systems that were much easier
to use than utilitarian systems such as spreadsheets and graphics
packages. A similar explanation was advanced by Teo et al.
[152] while explaining the non-significance of the perceived
ease of use effect for Internet usage. Therefore, it appears that
perceived ease of use may play a more salient role shaping
user intentions when the IT in question is complex rather than
simple.
In exploring how technical complexity may moderate the
effects of perceived ease of use, we must first examine how
perceived ease of use influences IT usage intention. Davis et al.
[36] suggests that there are two basic mechanisms driving this
effect: self-efficacy and instrumentality. Self-efficacy [16] refers
to personal control regarding their ability to execute specific
sequences of behavior needed to operate the system. An ease to use
system improves users sense of self-efficacy, which is presumed
to operate autonomously from instrumental determinants of
behavior and influence behavior through intrinsic motivation.
This effect is captured as a direct relationship between perceived
ease of use and usage intention. In contrast, instrumentality
contributes to improved performance, wherein the effort saved
from an easy to use IT can enable users accomplish more work
for the same effort. This instrumentality effect is captured in a
direct association between perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness, which indirectly influence behavioral intention. Both
the direct and indirect effects of perceived ease of use are more
Winter 2014
likely to be realized if the technology under consideration is

sufficiently complex to begin with. Hence, we hypothesize:
H6. The effect of perceived ease of use on IT usage intention
is stronger for complex IT than for simple IT.
H7. The effect of perceived ease of use on perceived
usefulness is stronger for complex IT than for simple
IT.
It should be noted that although technological characteristics
are specified in the above hypotheses in binary terms (high
versus low utilitarian value, simple versus complex IT) for ease
of analysis, these characteristics are indeed continuous in nature.
Furthermore, these characteristics are not exhaustive, and there
may be many additional technological factors that may moderate
IT usage. We excluded demographic characteristics such as gender
and age previously studied in the usage literature (e.g., [161])
because (1) these are individual-level attributes that cannot be
meaningfully aggregated at the study-level for our meta-analysis,
and (2) these demographic factors are not of focal interest to our
study of technological characteristics.
METHODS
The seven hypotheses described above were tested using
meta-analysis [44, 57] a technique for aggregating findings
from prior studies and testing for moderator effects.
Sample Selection
Studies were selected for this meta-analysis via a computerized
search of two online databases ProQuest ABI/Inform and
EBSCOhost Business Source Premier using the keywords:
technology acceptance model, TAM, unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology, UTAUT, acceptance, adoption, behavioral
intention, use, and usage. We restricted our search to articles
published over a 20-year time period from 1989 to 2009; starting in
1989 to coincide with Davis [35] and Davis et al. [36] studies that
are considered to be the earliest studies in IT usage. To limit our
search results to a manageable set, we further limited our choice
of articles to those published in the ten highest ranked IS journals
or multi-disciplinary journals with dedicated IS sections MIS
Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Management Science,
Organization Science, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Journal of the Association of Information Systems,
European Journal of Information Systems, Decision Sciences,
Decision Support Systems, and Information & Management.
Journal publications may suffer from a significance
bias in that they tend to publish studies reporting significant
findings and ignore those with mostly non-significant findings
[168]. To overcome this bias, we also searched two leading
conference proceedings in information systems International
Conference on Information Systems and Americas Conference on
Information Systems and doctoral dissertation archived in the
ProQuestInterdisciplinary Dissertations & ThesesDatabasefor
IT usage-related articles using the same keywords during the
same time-frame.
The above set of articles was manually filtered using four
criteria. First, we excluded articles on unrelated topics such as
knowledge adoption which showed up using our search criteria.
Second, we excluded studies that examined IT adoption at the

Winter 2014
organizational level, since IT usage models such as TAM and

UTAUT are specified at the individual level. Third, we excluded
qualitative or opinion articles that did not report quantitative
effect estimates as needed for meta-analysis. Fourth, we retained
only those papers that examined at least two variables and
one relationship in our model. This selection process led to 93
journal publications, 10 conference proceedings, and 26 doctoral
dissertations, for an overall sample of 129 studies.
To ensure that we did not inadvertently miss out on any
important IT usage article, we cross-validated our reference list
in two ways. First, we compared our selected studies with those
used in five prior TAM meta-analytic studies Legris et al. [95],
Ma and Liu [104], King and He [82], Schepers and Wetzels [131],
and Wu and Lederer [169] to ensure that we included all studies
examined in these prior meta-analyses. Second, we examined the
citation track of three key papers in this area Davis [35], Davis
et al. [36], and Venkatesh et al. [161] in the ISI Web of Science
database for the same purpose.
Data Coding
The next step in our meta-analysis was to select a measure
of association between our hypothesized dependent and independent variables that would allow the greatest number of effects
to be included in the meta-analysis. We chose the Pearson
correlation coefficient, r, as the primary effect size estimator
because this was the most frequently reported metric in our
sample. Other measures of association were converted to this
metric using conversion formulas provided by Wolf [168].
Bivariate correlations between pairs of constructs were tabulated into an Excel spreadsheet, along with the number of
observations (sample size), and construct reliabilities in a manner
similar to Sabherwal et al. [128, online supplement]. This
process yielded 718 bivariate correlations among our variables
of interest.
Many studies used different nomenclature for the same
construct. We consolidated such constructs using the categorization suggested by Venkatesh et al. [161]. Perceived usefulness
was consolidated with performance expectancy and relative
advantage, perceived ease of use with effort expectancy and
complexity (reversed), and subjective norm with social influence,
peer influence, and normative pressure. While coding correlations
involving reverse-coded variations of a construct, such as
complexity (reverse of perceived ease of use), the valences of
correlations involving that construct were reversed to align them
with the primary construct of interest.
Since some studies in our sample were based on common data
samples, to avoid sample size inflation, all journal publications,
conference proceedings, and dissertations drawn from the
same data set were treated as a single study with one set of
correlations in our meta-analysis. For studies that used multiple
independent samples [e.g., 60] or tested multiple technologies
[e.g., 142], multiple correlations were considered only for unique
combinations of samples and technologies.
In meta-analysis, studies are considered dependent when
multiple measures of the same dependent variables are collected
from the same sample of participants for different technologies
or at different points in time [57]. For instance, Adams et al. [1]
examined voice mail and e-mail use within the same sample of
subjects, which would violate the independence requirement for
meta-analysis. In such cases, we followed Hunter and Schmidts
recommendation of using sample size weighted average
correlations across different technologies or time points to create

a composite correlation for each construct pair. The sample size
for such studies was estimated as k x N, where k is the number of
time periods (or technologies) and N is the number of observations
used to compute the correlation coefficient. This is a conservative
estimate of sample size because it is larger than the largest sample
size N, and hence accounts for the smallest amount of sampling
error.
Humphrey et al. [56] suggested that correlation measures
in meta-analysis are subject to measurement errors and must
therefore be corrected for construct reliability. We employed
Cronbach alpha as our primary measure of reliability because
this was the most frequently reported reliability measure in our
sampled studies. In case Cronbach alpha was not reported, we
used the average Cronbach alpha value for that construct from
other studies as a proxy, as recommended by [56].
Moderator variables were coded as follows. First, we extracted
the textual description of the technology and study context
reported in each study. Then, each of the two authors of this paper
independently evaluated the IT being studied as being high or
low in utilitarian, hedonic, and communication value, based on
the context description. In some studies, the classification was
quite clear, for instance physicians use of a computerized order
entry system [18] or students use of a debugging system for
programming assignments [15] were coded as high in utilitarian
value, but low in hedonic and communication value. In other
cases, a single technology appeared to include multiple types of
value. For instance, ERP use by corporate employees [146] was
coded as high in utilitarian and communication value (because
ERP systems are used to coordinate workflow and activities
across business processes and employees) but low in hedonic
value, while use of online video games [54] was coded as high
in hedonic and communication value but low in utilitarian value,
and Internet use [107] was coded as high in utilitarian, hedonic,
and communication value. Each technology was also coded for
its complexity as low, medium, or high based on its context
description or our own estimation of the amount of effort needed
to learn and use that IT. Even though this coding was subjective,
we maintained a level of inter-subjectivity by evaluating different
technologies in a relative manner. For instance, consumer websites
were coded as low complexity, student course portals requiring

PU
(k, N)
SN
(k, N)
PBC
(k, N)
PEJ
(k, N)
BI
(k, N)
U
(k, N)
login, downloading materials, and submitting assignments (e.g.,

Blackboard) was designed as medium complexity, and an ERP
system was coded as high complexity.
To evaluate the reliability of our coding process, we computed
Cohens kappa as a measure of inter-rater reliability. This metric
was 0.90 (p<0.01) for utilitarian value, 0.90 (p<0.01) for hedonic
value, 0.91 (p<0.01) for communication value, and 0.92 (p<0.01)
for technical complexity. Instances of coding differences between
the two authors were resolved through discussion to yield a
consensus coding for each moderator variable.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Our data analysis proceeded in two stages. The first stage
focused on bivariate analysis of our meta-analytic data, correcting
bivariate correlations for sampling and measurement errors, and
estimating standardized effect sizes for our main effects of interest.
The second stage examined the significance of our hypothesized
moderator effects.
Correlation Analysis
To correct our bivariate correlations for potential sampling and
measurement errors and thereby allow for meaningful comparison
and integration of effect sizes across studies, we employed the
Hunter and Schmidts [57] psychometric meta-analytic technique
(see details in Appendix A) using the Hunter-Schmidt metaanalysis software [132].
For each pair-wise relationship, bivariate correlations corrected for measurement and sampling errors (p) are reported in
Table 1, along with their combined sample size (N) and number
of reported correlations (k). All correlations were significant at
p<0.05. The correlations of interest to our research model are
examined in greater detail in Table 2, along with their standard
deviations (SDp), Fishers Z-transformed sample size weighted
mean correlation (Zp), fail safe N, 95% confidence interval for Zp
estimates, and correlation ranges. A wide variability in correlations
was observed across studies. For instance, the correlation between
perceived usefulness and IT usage intention ranged from 0.09
to 0.85, with a corrected mean of 0.60. Comparing bivariate
correlations between IT usage intention and its predictors, we
Table 1: Bivariate Correlations

PEOU
PU
SN
PBC
PEJ
0.55
(120, 40406)
0.25
0.44
(39, 13876)
(40, 14377)
0.64
0.43
0.28
(13, 3849)
(13, 3849)
(12, 3776)
0.45
0.49
0.33
0.42
(21, 9189)
(25, 10897)
(6, 2553)
(4, 1019)
0.48
0.60
0.41
0.49
0.46
(92, 31777)
(103, 35298)
(37, 12864)
(14, 4344)
(21, 8920)
0.33
0.44
0.18
0.36
0.35
(45, 12784)
(40, 14377)
(19, 6739)
(4, 1674)
(8, 4173)
Legend: PU: Perceived usefulness; PEOU: Perceived ease of use; SN: Subjective norm;
PBC: Perceived behavioral control; PEJ: Perceived enjoyment; BI: IT usage intention; U: IT usage.
k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size.
All correlations (p) are corrected for sampling and measurement errors and are significant at p<0.05.

Winter 2014
BI
0.54
(31, 11245)
Table 2: Bivariate Analysis

PEOUBI
PUBI
SNBI
PBCBI
PEJBI
PEOUPU
SNPU
PBCU
BIU
Fail safe
Range of r
95% CI
SDp
Zp
Lowest
Highest
Lower
Upper
0.48
0.60
0.41
0.49
0.46
0.55
0.44
0.36
0.54
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.16
0.19
0.18
0.14
0.05
0.18
0.53
0.69
0.43
0.53
0.50
0.61
0.47
0.38
0.61
92
103
37
14
21
120
40
4
31
31777
35298
12864
4344
8920
40406
14377
1674
11245
351.20
515.51
114.48
54.05
75.87
536.94
134.11
10.35
137.73
0.10
0.09
0.13
0.14
0.16
-0.12
0.17
0.12
0.09
0.73
0.85
0.69
0.71
0.82
0.84
0.68
0.39
0.78
0.45
0.57
0.36
0.40
0.38
0.51
0.39
0.29
0.48
0.52
0.63
0.45
0.57
0.55
0.58
0.48
0.42
0.61
Legend: PU: Perceived usefulness; PEOU: Perceived ease of use; SN: Subjective norm; PBC: Perceived behavioral control;
PEJ: Perceived enjoyment; BI: IT usage intention; U: IT usage.
p = estimated corrected correlation for sampling error and measurement error; SDp = standard deviations of estimated p;
Zp = Fishers Z-transformed sample size weighted mean correlation; k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size;
95% CI = 95% confidence interval for Zp estimates.
found that perceived usefulness had the strongest association
with intention (p=0.60), followed by perceived behavioral control
(p=0.49), perceived ease of use (p=0.48), perceived enjoyment
(p=0.46), and subjective norm (p=0.41). Using Cohens [29]
guidelines of effect sizes (small effect=0.10, medium effect=0.30,
large effect=0.50), all of the above effects were in the mediumto-large range.
Particularly intriguing is the association between perceived
enjoyment and IT usage intention (p=0.46), which has been
overlooked in most prior IT usage models. To investigate this
association further, we divided our data set by into IT with high
and low hedonic value, and examined the enjoyment-intention
correlation separately for each subset. This effect size was larger
for IT with high hedonic value (p=0.51) than for those with low
hedonic value (p=0.40). However, even IT with low hedonic value
had a medium-to-large effect, suggesting that enjoyment plays a
substantive role in motivating IT usage intentions even for such
IT. Based on this observation, we recommend that future IT usage
models include perceived enjoyment as a formal predictor of IT
usage intention.
Table 2 shows that IT usage intention has a strong correlation
with IT usage (p=0.54), followed by perceived behavioral control
(p=0.36). However, a wide range of the correlation between
intention and usage (0.09 to 0.78), suggesting that this association varies widely across technologies. Among predictors of
perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use was strongly associated with the dependent variable (p=0.55) followed by subjective norm (p=0.44). While the relationship between subjective
norm and perceived usefulness has generally been ignored in
IT usage research, the medium-to-large magnitude of this
association is indicative of strong identification and internalization
effects, and should be considered as such in future models of
IT usage.
Table 2 reports the Fishers Z-transformed sample size
weighted mean correlation (Zp), a corrected estimate of effect
size. This value was positive and significantly different from zero
for all of our main effects of interest, as expected from prior IT
usage models. The 95% confidence interval of Zp values also
excludes zero for all associations, providing further evidence of
effect size significance. The number of null effects that must be
observed to bring these effect sizes estimate down to a level of
non-significance is called the fail safe N statistic. This statistic

Winter 2014
is a measure of confidence in our observed effect sizes because

academic journals have a tendency to publish significant findings
and that non-significant results are often relegated to researchers
file drawers without publication, and the fail safe N statistic
provides an estimate of the number of such file drawer studies
needed to overturn a hypothesized effect. The lowest fail safe
N value among our associations of interest was 10.35 for the
correlation between perceived behavioral control and IT usage,
which may be more indicative of the minimal level of attention
devoted to this association in prior IT usage research (number
of studies k=4) than the weakness of this association per se.
The highest fail safe N values were for the associations between
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (fail safe N=537;
k=120) and between perceived usefulness and IT usage intention
(fail safe N=516; k=103), which have been extensively studied
in TAM.
Moderator Analysis
To test for the moderating effects of technological characteristics on IT usage, we first examined whether variations in
observed correlations could be attributed to moderating effects or
sampling error. For this purpose, we conducted three homogeneity
tests a test of the null hypothesis that the interaction error term
(between sample error and study error) is zero (see Appendix B).
First, the Hedges and Olkins [48] Q statistic for all correlations,
except that between perceived behavioral control and IT usage
were greater than the critical value for chi-square distribution
with k-1 degrees of freedom at p<0.01, (see Table 3). This test of
statistical significance suggests that the variability of correlations
across studies was greater than would be produced by sampling
error. Second, the percent variance in corrected correlations
attributable to all artifacts (Vart (%)) for all associations (ranging
from 5% to 58%) were less than the 75% threshold needed to rule
out moderator effects. Third, wide credibility intervals for all of
our target correlations excluded zero (see CrI ranges in Table 3),
also indicating the presence of moderators. Based on these three
tests, we inferred that there was a strong basis for moderators in
IT usage associations.
For moderator analysis, we divided our data set into
separate subgroups based on different levels of each moderator
and conducted separate meta-analysis for each subgroup, as
Table 3: Homogeneity Tests for Moderator Effects

p
Zp
Lower
Upper
0.48
0.60
0.41
0.49
0.46
0.55
0.44
0.36
0.54
0.53
0.69
0.43
0.53
0.50
0.61
0.47
0.38
0.61
1258.75
1702.11
310.33
157.39
569.50
1952.39
364.59
7.71
429.73
0.28
0.39
0.24
0.28
0.21
0.32
0.26
0.30
0.32
0.69
0.81
0.58
0.69
0.71
0.78
0.61
0.42
0.77

PEOUBI
PUBI
SNBI
PBCBI
PEJBI
PEOUPU
SNPU
PBCU
BIU
80% CrI
Vart(%)
8.9%
6.7%
14.4%
10.8%
5.0%
6.7%
13.2%
57.8%
6.8%
Legend: PU: Perceived usefulness; PEOU: Perceived ease of use;

SN: Subjective norm; PBC: Perceived behavioral control; PEJ: Perceived enjoyment;
BI: IT usage intention; U: IT usage.
p = estimated corrected correlation for sampling error and measurement error;
Zp = Fishers Z-transformed sample size weighted mean correlation;
Q = Hedges and Olkins Q statistic; 80% CrI = 80% credibility intervals;
Vart (%) = percent variance in corrected correlations attributable to all artifacts.
since these two groups had similar p values

and compared the mean effect size of this
subgroup with that of the low complexity
subgroup. Our results, shown in Table 4,
indicate that the high/medium group had
significantly higher positive effect sizes than
the low group for the effects of perceived
ease of use on IT usage intention and
perceived usefulness, supporting Hypotheses
H6 and H7 respectively. To check whether
these results were the artifact of our grouping
the high and medium technical complexity
groups together, we conducted a follow up
analysis comparing the mean effect sizes
of the high and medium complexity groups
(excluding the low complexity group).
The same pattern of effects was observed,
confirming that the moderating effects of
technical complexity exist irrespective of the
level of IT complexity.
DISCUSSION
recommended by Hunter and Schmidt [57]. Fishers Z-test was

conducted to examine whether differences between the metaanalytic effect sizes (p) of comparable subgroups were significant.
Results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.
All of our seven hypothesis were supported at p<0.001.
The utilitarian value of IT moderated the effect of perceived
usefulness on IT usage intention in a positive manner, supporting
Hypothesis H1. Hedonic value moderated the effects of perceived
enjoyment and perceived ease of use on IT usage intention in a
positive manner, supporting Hypotheses H2 and H3 respectively.
Communication value moderated the effects of subjective norm
on IT usage intention and perceived usefulness in a positive
manner, supporting Hypotheses H4 and H5 respectively.
Technical complexity was coded in three levels: high, medium,
and low. In order to test the moderating effects of this construct,
we combined the high and medium groups into one subgroup
Implications for Research and Practice

Our meta-analytic findings are consistent in directionality and
statistical significance with the hypothesized moderating effects of
technological characteristics. We found that IT with high utilitarian
value accentuates the relationship between perceived usefulness
and IT usage intention, that with high hedonic value magnifies
the relationship between perceived enjoyment and perceived ease
of use (as independent variables) and IT usage intention (as the
dependent variable), and that with high communication value
enhances the role of subject norms in shaping both intentions
and beliefs (perceived usefulness) regarding IT usage. These
observations support our initial premise that IT usage research
must consider the nature and purpose of the IT artifact to
understand why certain IT is successfully accepted in some user
Table 4: Moderator Analysis

Association
Moderator
PUBI
Utilitarian Value

PEJBI
Hedonic Value

PEOUBI
Hedonic Value

SNBI
Communication Value

SNPU
Communication Value

PEOUBI
Technical complexity

PEOUPU
Technical complexity

Level
Z-value
Hypothesis
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High/Medium
Low
High/Medium
Low
0.61
0.54
0.51
0.40
0.55
0.46
0.45
0.36
0.45
0.41
0.50
0.46
0.58
0.49
93
10
11
10
15
77
24
11
25
13
50
41
72
44
32537
2761
4670
4250
6448
25329
7258
4628
7862
5537
15107
16337
21954
16885
4.61***
H1 supported
6.70***
H2 supported
8.04***
H3 supported
5.82***
H4 supported
2.45***
H5 supported
4.77***
H6 supported
12.15***
H7 supported
Legend: PU: Perceived usefulness; PEOU: Perceived ease of use; SN: Subjective norm; PEJ: Perceived enjoyment;
BI: Behavioral intention.
p = estimated corrected correlation for sampling error and measurement error; k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size;
Z-value = Fishers Z-test statistic.
Significance: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Winter 2014
populations but not in others. In other words, we should open the

IT black box and integrate technological characteristics within
existing models to provide a more comprehensive explanation of
IT usage.
Our analysis also demonstrated that technical complexity of
an IT moderates the effects of perceived ease of use on IT usage
intention and perceived usefulness in a positive manner. These
subtle variations in IT usage patterns across technologies suggests
that IT usage research should tailor usage models to the specific
IT being studied, rather than using a one model fits all model as
common in typical IT usage research.
Our findings also have practical implications for improving IT
utilization within organizations. Managers should not assume that
implementation strategies found successful for one IT will work
for another, given inherent differences in the nature and purpose
of these technologies. Instead, they should tailor strategies to
best fit the specific IT under consideration. For instance, while
implementing IT with high utilitarian value, they should focus
user education efforts on conveying the instrumentality of the
IT, while for communication-oriented IT, more attention should
be devoted to building subjective norms by communicating user
experience from early adopters to later adopters. Of course, some
IT can fit multiple categories, in which case, a hybrid strategy
may be more useful. Likewise, technically complex IT will
require significant investments in user training to improve ease
of use perceptions, which can contribute to improved IT usage
intentions directly and indirectly by shaping usefulness beliefs
about that IT.
Limitations of the Study
All meta-analyses are subject to certain limitations, which
should be kept in mind while interpreting the findings of this
study. First, studies included in a meta-analysis vary considerably
in their research design, measurement methods, and data analytic
procedures. Integrating results from such studies with diverse
designs, measures, and procedures may sometimes obfuscate the
very effects that the meta-analysis is attempting to uncover, and
can even lead to erroneous conclusions [81]. Second, though IT
usage is essentially a temporal process that unfolds over time,
the cross-sectional nature of most studies included in this metaanalysis limits our ability to draw temporal causal inferences.
Third, we examined only a limited set of technological
characteristics that could be coded from the textual description
in the original studies. Variables not examined in this study may
very well account for some of the unexplained variance. We suggest that IT usage studies model additional technological variables and test their effects on IT usage intention and behavior.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of
technological characteristics on IT usage, and more broadly, to
incorporate the notion of IT artifacts within extant models of
IT usage. It was expected that such an approach will improve
our ability to predict varying patterns of IT usage across a
user population, while also providing nuanced explanations
of the variations in IT usage engendered by technological
characteristics. A meta-analysis of IT usage research confirmed
that such differences do exist in IT usage behaviors. We hope
that this study will motivate more interest in the IT artifact and
stimulate in-depth examination of how the different dimensions

Winter 2014
of this artifact can be incorporated within our current models of

IT usage.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by Humanities and Social
Sciences Research Project of the Ministry of Education of China
(11YJC630189), Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grant (LQ12G02009) and National Natural
Science Foundation of China (70972119, 71302034). And this
material is based upon work funded by China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation Funded Project (2011M500105, 2012T50560).
Besides, this research was supported in part by Zhejiang Provincial
Philosophy and Social Sciences Project (12JCGL11YB),
Decision Sciences and Innovation Management Key Research
Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Universities in
Zhejiang Province (RWSKZD02-201206) and the Contemporary
Business and Trade Research Center of Zhejiang Gongshang
University, which is the Key Research Institute of Social Sciences
and Humanities Ministry of Education (13JDSM05YB).
REFERENCES
(Papers included in meta-analysis indicated by asterisk [*])
[1] *Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. and Todd, P.A. Perceived
usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information
technology: A replication, MIS Quarterly, (16: 2), 1992,
227-247.
[2] *Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. Time flies when youre
having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about
information technology usage, MIS Quarterly, (24: 4),
2000, 665-694.
[3] *Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. The role of innovation
characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the
acceptance of information technologies, Decision
Sciences, (28: 3), 1997, 557-582.
[4] *Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. The antecedents and
consequents of user perceptions in information technology
adoption, Decision Support Systems, (22: 1), 1998, 1529.
[5] *Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. Are individual differences
germane to the acceptance of new information
technologies?, Decision Sciences, (30: 2), 1999, 361391.
[6] *Ahn, T., Ryu, S. and Han, I. The impact of web quality
and playfulness on user acceptance of online retailing,
Information & Management, (44: 3), 2007, 263-275.
[7] Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, (50: 2), 1991,
179-211.
[8] *Al-Gahtani, S.S., Hubona, G.S. and Wang, J. Information
technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the acceptance
and use of IT, Information & Management, (44: 8), 2007,
681-691.
[9] *Al-Jabri, I.M. and Al-Hadab, A., End user adoption of
ERP systems: Investigation of four beliefs, Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Canada, 2008, 1-8.
[10] *Al-Khaldi, M.A. and Olusegun Wallace, R.S. The
influence of attitudes on personal computer utilization
among knowledge workers: The case of saudi arabia,
[11] *Aladwani, A.M. The development of two tools for

measuring the easiness and usefulness of transactional
web sites, European Journal of Information Systems, (11:
3), 2002, 223-234.
[12] *Aldosari, B.M.B. Factors affecting physicians attitudes
about the medical information system usage and acceptance
through the mandated implementation of integrated
medical information system at the saudi arabia national
guard health system: A modified technology acceptance
model, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Pittsburgh, 2003.
[13] *An, J.-Y. Correlates and predictors of consumers health
information and services usage behavior on the internet:
A structural equation modeling approach, unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 2005.
[14] Atkinson, M. and Kydd, C. Individual characteristics
associated with world wide web use: An empirical study
of playfulness and motivation, ACM SIGMIS Database,
(28: 2), 1997, 53-62.
[15] *Bajaj, A. and Nidumolu, S.R. A feedback model to
understand information system usage, Information &
Management, (33: 4), 1998, 213-224.
[16] Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency,
American Psychologist, (37: 2), 1982, 122-147.
[17] Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R. The identity crisis within the
is discipline: Defining and communicating the disciplines
core properties, MIS Quarterly, (27: 2), 2003, 183
194.
[18] *Bhattacherjee, A. and Hikmet, N. Physicians resistance
toward healthcare information technology: A theoretical
model and empirical test, European Journal of Information
Systems, (16: 6), 2007, 725-737.
[19] *Bhattacherjee, A. and Sanford, C. Influence processes
for information technology acceptance: An elaboration
likelihood model, MIS Quarterly, (30: 4), 2006, 805825.
[20] *Brown, S.A. and Venkatesh, V. Model of adoption
of technology in households: A baseline model test and
extension incorporating household life cycle, MIS
Quarterly, (29: 3), 2005, 399-426.
[21] *Burton-Jones, A. and Hubona, G.S. The mediation of
external variables in the technology acceptance model,
[22] *Busch, E.A. Integrating technology acceptance and
innovation diffusion factors to predict intentions to use
an electronic messaging system, unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1995.
[23] *Castaeda, J.A., Muz-Leiva, F. and Luque, T. Web
acceptance model (WAM): Moderating effects of user
experience, Information & Management, (44: 4), 2007,
384-396.
[24] *Chakraborty, I., Hu, P.J.-H. and Cui, D. Examining the
effects of cognitive style in individuals technology use
decision making, Decision Support Systems, (45: 2),
2008, 228-241.
[25] Chau, P. and Hu, P. Information technology acceptance by
individual professionals: A model comparison approach,
Decision Sciences, (32: 4), 2001, 699-719.
[26] *Chea, S. Understanding the roles of emotion in technology
acceptance, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Hawaii at Manoa, 2006.
[27] Chin, W.W. and Gopal, A. Adoption intention in gss:

10
Relative importance of beliefs, ACM SIGMIS Database,

(26: 2-3), 1995, 42-64.
[28] *Cho, V. A study of the roles of trusts and risks in
information-oriented online legal services using an
integrated model, Information & Management, (43: 4),
2006, 502-520.
[29] Cohen, J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences, New York, 1977.
[30] Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A. and Huff, S. Social cognitive
theory and individual reactions to computing technology:
A longitudinal study, MIS Quarterly, (23: 2), 1999, 145158.
[31] *Compeau, D.R. and Higgins, C.A. Computer selfefficacy: Development of a measure and initial test, MIS
Quarterly, (19: 2), 1995, 189-211.
[32] *Compeau, D.R., Meister, D.B. and Higgins, C.A. From
prediction to explanation: Reconceptualizing and extending
the perceived characteristics of innovating, Journal of the
AIS, (8: 1), 2007, 409-439.
[33] *Cyr, D., Head, M. and Ivanov, A. Design aesthetics
leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce, Information &
Management, (43: 8), 2006, 950-963.
[34] *Dasgupta, S. and Gupta, B., Role of organizational
culture in internet technology adoption: An empirical
study, Americas Conference on Information Systems,
USA, 2005, 1304-1311.
[35] *Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS
Quarterly, (13: 3), 1989, 319-340.
[36] *Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. User
acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models, Management Science, (35: 8), 1989,
982-1003.
[37] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, (22: 14), 1992,
1111-1132.
[38] Deci, E.L., Intrinsic motivation, New York, 1975.
[39] *Devaraj, S., Easley, R.F. and Crant, J.M. How does
personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to
technology acceptance and use, Information Systems
Research, (19: 1), 2008, 93-105.
[40] *Dinev, T. and Hu, Q. The centrality of awareness in the
formation of user behavioral intention toward protective
information technologies, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, (8: 1), 2007, 386-408.
[41] *Fayad, R. Extension of the technology acceptance
model in electronic commerce, unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Utah State University, 2006.
[42] Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I., Belief, attitude, intention and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research, MA,
1975.
[43] *Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. Inexperience
and experience with online stores: The importance
of tam and trust, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, (50: 3), 2003, 307-321.
[44] Glass, G.V., McGaw, B. and Smith, M.L., Meta-analysis
in social research, Beverly Hills, CA, 1981.
[45] *Ha, I., Yoon, Y. and Choi, M. Determinants of adoption
of mobile games under mobile broadband wireless access
environment, Information & Management, (44: 3), 2007,
276-286.
Winter 2014
[46] *Habelow, E.M. Factors related to the use of an electronic

performance support system (epss), unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, 2000.
[47] *Hasan, B. Delineating the effects of general and systemspecific computer self-efficacy beliefs on is acceptance,
[48] Hedges, L.V. and Olkin, I., Statistical methods for metaanalysis, 1985.
[49] *Hong, S.-J. and Tam, K.Y. Understanding the adoption
of multipurpose information appliances: The case of
mobile data services, Information Systems Research, (17:
2), 2006, 162-179.
[50] *Hong, S.-J., Thong, J.Y.L. and Tam, K.Y. Understanding
continued information technology usage behavior: A
comparison of three models in the context of mobile
internet, Decision Support Systems, (42: 3), 2006, 18191834.
[51] *Hong, W., Thong, J.Y.L., Wong, W.-M. and Tam, K.-Y.
Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An
empirical examination of individual differences and system
characteristics, Journal of Management Information
Systems, (18: 3), 2001, 97-124.
[52] *Hsieh, J.J.P.-A., Rai, A. and Keil, M. Understanding
digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral
models of the socio-economically advantaged and
disadvantaged, MIS Quarterly, (32: 1), 2008, 97-126.
[53] *Hsu, C.-L. and Lin, J.C.-C. Acceptance of blog usage:
The roles of technology acceptance, social influence
and knowledge sharing motivation, Information &
Management, (45: 1), 2008, 65-74.
[54] *Hsu, C.-L. and Lu, H.-P. Why do people play on-line
games? An extended tam with social influences and flow
experience, Information & Management, (41: 7), 2004,
853-868.
[55] *Hsu, M.-H. and Chiu, C.-M. Internet self-efficacy and
electronic service acceptance, Decision Support Systems,
(38: 3), 2004, 369-381.
[56] Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P.
Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work
design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical
extension of the work design literature, Journal of Applied
Psychology, (92: 5), 2007, 1332-1356.
[57] Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L., Methods of meta-analysis:
Correcting error and bias in research findings, 2004.
[58] *Hur, Y. Determinants of sport website acceptance: An
application and extension of the technology acceptance
model, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Washington
State University, 2007.
[59] *Hwang, Y. Investigating enterprise systems adoption:
Uncertainty avoidance, intrinsic motivation, and the
technology acceptance model, European Journal of
[60] Igbaria, M. User acceptance of microcomputer
technology, Omega, (21: 1), 1993, 7390.
[61] *Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G.B. Testing
the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural
equation model, Journal of Management Information
Systems, (11: 4), 1995, 87-114.
[62] *Igbaria, M., Iivari, J. and Maragahh, H. Why do
individuals use computer technology? A finnish case
study, Information & Management, (29: 5), 1995, 227238.

Winter 2014
[63] *Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. and Baroudi, J.J. A

motivational model of microcomputer usage, Journal
of Management Information Systems, (13: 1), 1996, 127143.
[64] *Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. and Cavaye, A.L.M.
Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A
structural equation model, MIS Quarterly, (21: 3), 1997,
279-305.
[65] *Iivari, J. and Maansaari, J., The impact of case on
is professionals work and motivation to use case,
International Conference on Information Systems, 1997,
89-105.
[66] *Ilie, V., Slyke, C.V., Parikh, M.A. and Courtney, J.F.
Paper versus electronic medical records: The effects of
access on physicians decisions to use complex information
technologies, Decision Sciences, (40: 2), 2009, 213-241.
[67] *Im, I., Kim, Y. and Han, H.-J. The effects of perceived
risk and technology type on users acceptance of
technologies, Information & Management, (45: 1), 2008,
1-9.
[68] *Jiang, Z. and Benbasat, I. Research note investigating
the influence of the functional mechanisms of online
product presentations, Information Systems Research,
(18: 4), 2007, 454-470.
[69] Johnson, B.T., Mullen, B. and Salas, E. Comparison of
three major meta-analytic approaches, Journal of Applied
Psychology, (80: 1), 1995, 94-106.
[70] *Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R. and Angst, C.M.
Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology
acceptance research, MIS Quarterly, (30: 4), 2006, 781804.
[71] Karahanna, E., Ahuja, M., Srite, M. and Galvin, J.
Individual differences and relative advantage: The case of
gss, Decision Support Systems, (32: 4), 2002, 327-341.
[72] *Keeton, K. An extension of the utaut model: How
organizational factors and individual differences
influence technology acceptance, unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Houston, 2008.
[73] *Keil, M., Beranek, P.M. and Konsynski, B.R. Usefulness
and ease of use: Field study evidence regarding task
considerations, Decision Support Systems, (13: 1), 1995,
75-91.
[74] Kelman, H.C. Compliance, identification, and
internalization: Three processes of attitude change,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, (2: 1), 1958, 51-60.
[75] *Kim, H.-W., Chan, H.C. and Gupta, S. Value-based
adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation,
Decision Support Systems, (43: 1), 2007, 111-126.
[76] *Kim, J.-A. User acceptance of web-based subscription
databases: Extending the technology acceptance model,
unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Florida State
University, 2005.
[77] Kim, J.Y., Shim, J. and Ahn, K.M. Social networking
service: Motivation, pleasure, and behavioral intention to
use, Journal of Computer Information Systems, (51: 4),
2011, 92-101.
[78] *Kim, S.H. Moderating effects of job relevance and
experience on mobile wireless technology acceptance:
Adoption of a smartphone by individuals, Information &
Management, (45: 6), 2008, 387-393.
[79] *Kim, S.S. and Malhotra, N.K. A longitudinal model of
continued is use: An integrative view of four mechanisms
11
underlying postadoption phenomena, Management

Science, (51: 5), 2005, 741-755.
[80] *Kim, S.S., Malhotra, N.K. and Narasimhan, S. Research
note two competing perspectives on automatic use:
A theoretical and empirical comparison, Information
Systems Research, (16: 4), 2005, 418-432.
[81] King, W.R. and He, J. Understanding the role and methods
of meta-analysis in is research, Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, (16: 1), 2005, 665686.
[82] King, W.R. and He, J. A meta-analysis of the technology
acceptance model, Information & Management, (43: 6),
2006, 740-755.
[83] *Klein, R. An empirical examination of patient-physician
portal acceptance, European Journal of Information
Systems, (16: 6), 2007, 751-760.
[84] Kling, R. and Scacchi, W. The web of computing:
Computer technology as social organization, Advances in
computers, (21) 1982, 1-90.
[85] *Koufaris, M. Applying the technology acceptance model
and flow theory to online consumer behavior, Information
[86] *Kowitlawakul, Y. Technology acceptance model:
Predicting nurses acceptance of telemedicine technology
(eICU), unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, George
Mason University, 2008.
[87] *Kulviwat, S. An investigation of factors predicting
consumer adoption of high-technology innovations: The
integrative roles of cognition and affect, unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, 2004.
[88] *Kumar, N., Mohan, K. and Holowczak, R. Locking
the door but leaving the computer vulnerable: Factors
inhibiting home users adoption of software firewalls,
Decision Support Systems, (46: 1), 2008, 254-264.
[89] *Kwahk, K.-Y., An empirical study on the effect of
attitude toward change and computer self-efficacy on ERP
adoption: A comparison of the local and global packages,
Americas Conference on Information Systems, Canada,
2008, 1-11.
[90] *Kwahk, K.-Y. and Lee, J.-N. The role of readiness for
change in ERP implementation: Theoretical bases and
empirical validation, Information & Management, (45:
7), 2008, 474-481.
[91] *Lapczynski, P.H. An integrated model of technology
acceptance for mobile computing, unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Pace University, 2004.
[92] *Lee, M.-C. Predicting and explaining the adoption of
online trading: An empirical study in taiwan, Decision
Support Systems, (47: 2), 2009, 133-142.
[93] *Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K. and Chen, Z. Acceptance
of internet-based learning medium: The role of extrinsic
and intrinsic motivation, Information & Management,
(42: 8), 2005, 1095-1104.
[94] *Lee, Y.-k. Factors affecting learner behavioral intentions
to adopt web-based learning technology in adult and higher
education, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of South Dakota, 2001.
[95] Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. Why do people use
information technology? A critical review of the technology
2003, 191-204.

12
[96] *Leong, L.Y.S. A test of the technology acceptance model

in database application: Ms access use, unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University,
2001.
[97] *Lewis, W., Agarwal, R. and Sambamurthy, V. Sources of
influence on beliefs about information technology use: An
empirical study of knowledge workers, MIS Quarterly,
(27: 4), 2003, 657-678.
[98] *Li, D., Chau, P.Y.K. and Lou, H. Understanding
individual adoption of instant messaging: An empirical
investigation, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, (6: 4), 2005, 102-129.
[99] *Limayem, M., Cheung, C. and Chan, G., Explaining
information systems adoption and post-adoption: Toward
an integrative model, International Conference on
Information Systems, Seattle, WA, 2003, 720-731.
[100] *Limayem, M. and Cheung, C.M.K. Understanding
information systems continuance: The case of internetbased learning technologies, Information & Management,
(45: 4), 2008, 227-232.
[101] *Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G. and Cheung, C.M.K. How
habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of
information systems continuance, MIS Quarterly, (31: 4),
2007, 705-737.
[102] *Lou, H., Luo, W. and Strong, D. Perceived critical mass
effect on groupware acceptance, European Journal of
[103] *Luo, M.-L. Technology acceptance of information
services, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Hawaii, 2005.
[104] Ma, Q. and Liu, L. The technology acceptance model: A
meta-analysis of empirical findings, Journal of Organi
zational and End User Computing, (16: 1), 2004, 59-72.
[105] *Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D.F. and Kirsch, L.J. How
endogenous motivations influence user intentions: Beyond
the dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic user motivations,
Journal of Management Information Systems, (25: 1),
2008, 267-299.
[106] Mathieson, K. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the
technology acceptance model with the theory of planned
behavior, Information Systems Research, (2: 3), 1991,
173-191.
[107] *McElroy, J.C., Hendrickson, A.R., Townsend, A.M. and
DeMarie, S.M. Dispositional factors in internet use:
Personality versus cognitive style, MIS Quarterly, (31:
4), 2007, 809-820.
[108] *Meli, P. Perspectives of health information management
faculty use of an e-learning laboratory and technology
acceptance, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Central Florida, 2008.
[109] *Mellarkod, V., Appan, R., Jones, D.R. and Sherif, K.
A multi-level analysis of factors affecting software
developers intention to reuse software assets: An empirical
investigation, Information & Management, (44: 7), 2007,
613-625.
[110] Moon, J.-W. and Kim, Y.-G. Extending the tam for a
world-wide-web context, Information & Management,
(38: 4), 2001, 217-230.
[111] Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. Development of an
instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an
information technology innovation, Information Systems
Research, (2: 3), 1991, 192-222.
Winter 2014
[112] *Mun, Y.Y., Kirk, D.F. and Jae, S.P. Understanding the
role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of itbased innovations: Comparative analyses of models and
measures, Decision Sciences, (37: 3), 2006, 393-426.
[113] *Myers, B.L. Moving beyond computer-based information
technology: A comparison of the technology acceptance
model with the theory of reasoned action and the theory
of planned behavior in an industry specifications context,
unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University,
2004.
[114] *Neufeld, D., Dong, L. and Higgins, C. Charismatic
leadership and user acceptance of information technology,
European Journal of Information Systems, (16: 4), 2007,
494-510.
[115] *Or, K. Development of a model of consumer health
information technology acceptance of patients with
chronic illness, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The
University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2008.
[116] Orlikowski, W.J. and Iacono, C.S. Research commentary:
Desperately seeking the It in it research-A call to
theorizing the it artifact, Information Systems Research,
(12: 2), 2001, 121-134.
[117] *Pan, C.-C. System use of webct in the light of the
technology acceptance model: A student perspective,
unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Central
Florida, 2003.
[118] *Park, N. User acceptance of computer-based voip phone
service: An application of the technology acceptance
model, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Southern California, 2007.
[119] *Pavlou, P., Integrating trust in electronic commerce with
the technology acceptance model: Model development
and validation, Americas Conference on Information
Systems, 2001, 816-822.
[120] *Pavlou, P.A. and Fygenson, M. Understanding and
prediction electronic commerce adoption: An extension of
the theory of planned behavior, MIS Quarterly, (30: 1),
2006, 115-143.
[121] *Plouffe, C.R., Hulland, J.S. and Vandenbosch, M.
Research report: Richness versus parsimony in modeling
technology adoption decisions--understanding merchant
adoption of a smart card-based payment system,
Information Systems Research, (12: 2), 2001, 208-222.
[122] *Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K. and Liu, H.-N. Internet
messaging: An examination of the impact of attitudinal,
normative, and control belief systems, Information &
Management, (45: 7), 2008, 451-457.
[123] *Qiu, L. and Benbasat, I. Evaluating anthropomorphic
product recommendation agents: A social relationship
perspective to designing information systems, Journal
of Management Information Systems, (25: 4), 2009, 145181.
[124] Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed., New York,
1995.
[125] *Rosen, P.A. The effect of personal innovativeness on
technology acceptance and use, unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 2005.
[126] Rosenthal, R., Meta-analytic procedures for social
research, Beverly Hills, CA, 1984.
[127] *Saade, R. and Bahli, B. The impact of cognitive
absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology

Winter 2014

2005, 317-327.
[128] Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A. and Chowa, C. Information
system success: Individual and organizational
determinants, Management Science, (52: 12), 2006,
1849-1864.
[129] *Sachidanandam, S. Why physicians do or do not use
computerized physican order entry systems: Applying
the technology acceptance model, unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 2006.
[130] *Sambamurthy, V. and Chin, W.W. The effects of group
attitudes toward alternative gdss designs on the decisionmaking performance of computer-supported groups,
Decision Sciences, (25: 2), 1994, 215-241.
[131] Schepers, J. and Wetzels, M. A meta-analysis of the
technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective
norm and moderation effects, Information & Management,
(44: 1), 2007, 90-103.
[132] Schmidt, F.L. and Le, H. Software for the hunter-schmidt
meta-analysis methods, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
42242, 2004.
[133] *Seligman, L.S. Perceived value impact as an antecedent
of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude:
A perspective on the influence of values on technology
acceptance, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, 2001.
[134] *Shih, H.-P. An empirical study on predicting user
acceptance of e-shopping on the web, Information &
Management, (41: 3), 2004, 351-368.
[135] *Shih, H.-P. Extended technology acceptance model of
internet utilization behavior, Information & Management,
(41: 6), 2004, 719-729.
[136] *Shin, D.H. Determinants of customer acceptance
of multi-service network: An implication for ip-based
technologies, Information & Management, (46: 1), 2009,
16-22.
[137] *Sledgianowski, D. and Kulviwat, S., Social network
sites: Antecedents of user adoption and usage, Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Canada, 2008, 1-10.
[138] *Slyke, C.V., Ilie, V., Lou, H. and Stafford, T. Perceived
critical mass and the adoption of a communication
technology, European Journal of Information Systems,
(16: 3), 2007, 270-283.
[139] *Smith, J.A.B. The effect of social presence on teacher
technology acceptance, continuance intention, and
performance in an online teacher professional development
course, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Central Florida, 2006.
[140] *Son, J.Y., Kim, S.S. and Riggins, F.J. Consumer adoption
of net-enabled infomediaries: Theoretical explanations
and an empirical test, Journal of the Association for
[141] *Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. The role of espoused
national cultural values in technology acceptance, MIS
Quarterly, (30: 3), 2006, 679-704.
[142] Subramanian, G.H. A replication of perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use measurement, Decision
Sciences, (25: 5-6), 1994, 863-874.
[143] umak, B., Heriko, M. and Punik, M. A meta-analysis
of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types
and e-learning technology types, Computers in human
behavior, (27: 6), 2011, 2067-2077.
13
[144] *Sun, H. and Zhang, P. Causal relationships between

perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use: An
alternative approach, Journal of the Association for
[145] Sun, H. and Zhang, P. The role of moderating factors
in user technology acceptance, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, (64: 2), 2006, 53-78.
[146] *Sun, Y., Bhattacherjee, A. and Ma, Q. Extending
technology usage to work settings: The role of perceived
work compatibility in ERP implementation, Information
& Management, (46: 6), 2009, 351-356.
[147] *Sykes, T.A., Venkatesh, V. and Gosain, S. Model of
acceptance with peer support: A social network perspective
to understand employees system use, MIS Quarterly,
(33: 2), 2009, 371-393.
[148] *Szajna, B. Empirical evaluation of the revised technology
acceptance model, Management Science, (42: 1), 1996,
85-92.
[149] *Taft, J. An examination of the antecedents of electronic
banking technology acceptance and use, unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Touro University International,
2007.
[150] TAN, G.W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., Sim, J.-J. and PHUSAVAT, K.
Determinants of mobile learning adoption: An empirical
analysis, Journal of Computer Information Systems, (52:
3), 2012, 82-91.
[151] *Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. Understanding information
technology usage: A test of competing models,
Information Systems Research, (6: 2), 1995, 144-176.
[152] Teo, T.S.H., Lim, V.K.G. and Lai, R.Y.C. Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in internet usage, Omega, (27: 1),
1999, 25-37.
[153] *Thomas, P. Information systems success and technol ogy acceptance within a government organization,
unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North
Texas, 2008.
[154] *Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A. and Howell, J.M.
Influence of experience on personal computer utilization:
Testing a conceptual model, Journal of Management
[155] Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S.
and Budgen, D. Does the technology acceptance model
predict actual use? A systematic literature review,
Information & Software Technology, (52: 5), 2010,

463-479.
[156] van der Heijden, H. Hedonic information systems, MIS
Quarterly, (28: 4), 2004, 695-704.
[157] *Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use:
Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into
the technology acceptance model, Information Systems
Research, (11: 4), 2000, 342-365.
[158] *Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Maruping, L.M. and Bala,
H. Predicting different conceptualizations of system use:
The competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating
conditions, and behavioral expectation, MIS Quarterly,
(32: 3), 2008, 483-502.
[159] *Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of
the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field
studies, Management Science, (46: 2), 2000, 186-204.
14
[160] *Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. Why dont men ever

stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and
their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior,
MIS Quarterly, (24: 1), 2000, 115-139.
[161] *Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Gordon, B.D. and Davis,
F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward
a unified view, MIS Quarterly, (27: 3), 2003, 425-478.
[162] *Venkatesh, V., Speier, C. and Morris, M., G. User
acceptance enablers in individual decision making about
technology: Toward an integrated model, Decision
Sciences, (33: 2), 2002, 297-316.
[163] *Wakefield, R., L. and Whitten, D. Mobile computing:
A user study on hedonic/utilitarian mobile device usage,
European Journal of Information Systems, (15: 3), 2006,
292.
[164] *Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J. and Streukens, S. The effect
of service employees technology readiness on technology
acceptance, Information & Management, (44: 2), 2007,
206-215.
[165] *Wang, W. and Benbasat, I., Trust and tam for online
recommendation agents, Americas Conference on
Information Systems, USA, 2004, 2042-2051.
[166] *Wilson, E.V., Mao, E. and Lankton, N.K., Predicting
continuing acceptance of it in conditions of sporadic use,
Americas Conference on Information Systems, USA,
2005, 406-414.
[167] *Wixom, B.H. and Todd, P.A. A theoretical integration of
user satisfaction and technology acceptance, Information
[168] Wolf, F.M., Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for
research synthesis, Beverly Hills, CA, 1986.
[169] Wu, J. and Lederer, A. A meta-analysis of the role
of environment-based voluntariness in information
technology acceptance, MIS Quarterly, (33: 2), 2009,
419-432.
[170] Wu, K., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Tan, X. and Zheng, H. A metaanalysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance
model: Investigation of moderating influence of subject
and context type, International Journal of Information
Management, (31: 6), 2011, 572-581.
[171] *Yang, H.-d. and Yoo, Y. Its all about attitude: Revisiting
the technology acceptance model, Decision Support
Systems, (38: 1), 2004, 19-31.
[172] *Yi, M.Y., Jackson, J.D., Park, J.S. and Probst, J.C.
Understanding information technology acceptance by
individual professionals: Toward an integrative view,
[173] Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R. and Pallister, J.G. Technology
acceptance: A meta-analysis of the tam: Part 2, Journal of
Modelling in Management, (2: 3), 2007, 281 - 304.
[174] Zhang, L., Zhu, J. and Liu, Q. A meta-analysis of mo bile commerce adoption and the moderating effect of
culture, Computers in human behavior, (28: 5), 2012,
19021911.
[175] *Zhang, P. and Li, N., Love at first sight or sustained
effect? The role of perceived affective quality on
users cognitive reactions to information technology,
International Conference on Information Systems, 2004,
283-296.
Winter 2014
Appendix A. Method for Correlation Analysis
wi
In the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis technique, raw

bivariate correlations are corrected for measurement error
by computing reliability-adjusted bivariate correlations rc as:
rc = ri / R x R y , where ri is the Pearson correlation (or
other effect size measure converted into Pearson correlation)
wstudy,
R ythe reliability of construct
reported in the original
i = ni Rxx is
=X,niand
R x RRyyyis the reliability of construct Y. Then, rc is adjusted
for sampling errors using the formula p=
w i rc / wi
where wi is the reliability adjusted weight for study i computed as
w i = ni R x R y where ni is the sample size of study i.
Next, the means and standard deviations of each of the
corrected correlation (p) values are computed. Rosenthal [126]
notes that as the population value of correlations moves further
away from zero, the distribution of correlations sampled from
that population become increasingly skewed, making it problematic to compare and interpret these aggregated correlations.
The Hedges and Olkin [48] procedure is used to correct for this
skewness, in which each p value was converted to its corresponding Z-statistic using Fishers r-to-Z transformation using the
formula: Z = 0.5 ln ((1 + r)/(1 r)). A weighted average of
Z-scores, calculated as z =
ni zi / ni where ni is the
sample size in study i, is the mean effect size for that construct
pair. For each correlation, 95% confidence interval is generated
using standard errors of the weighted mean effect size.
Winter 2014
Appendix B. Tests for Moderating Effects

Three homogeneity tests are available to test whether
variations in observed correlations can be attributed to moderating
effects or sampling error. This is a test of the null hypothesis
that the interaction error term (between sample error and study
error) is zero. The first test is Hedges and Olkins [48] Q-test,
which computes a Q-statistic for each bivariate association as:
where zi is Fishers Z-transformed correlation for study i, z is Fishers Z-transformed sample
size weighted mean correlation, and ni is the sample size in study
i. The Q-statistic is presumed to follow a chi-square distribution
with k-1 degrees of freedom, where k is the number of studies
included in the meta-analysis. If a Q-statistic is non-significant,
it indicates that the variance in this sample of effect sizes is not
greater than what may be expected as a result of sampling error.
The second test is recommended by Hunter and Schmidt [57], who
suggest that moderators are likely present if variances attributable
to statistical artifacts fail to account for 75% of the variance in the
meta-analytic correlations.
The third test involves an examination of credibility intervals
(CrI), which are estimates of the variability of corrected
correlations across studies. An 80% CrI that excludes zero
indicates that more than 80% of the corrected correlations are
different from zero, which suggests the possible presence of a
moderator.
15

Looking Inside The "It Black Box": Technological Effects On It Usage

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Looking Inside The "It Black Box": Technological Effects On It Usage

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Looking Inside the IT Black Box:

Technological Effects on IT Usage

Journal of Computer Information Systems

with actual usage. umak et al. [143] conducted a meta-analysis of

Journal of Computer Information Systems

users enjoyment or their communication

Hedonic Value. IT that is more hedonic

Journal of Computer Information Systems

needed to use a system assumes a more central role in shaping user

Journal of Computer Information Systems

likely to be realized if the technology under consideration is

organizational level, since IT usage models such as TAM and

Journal of Computer Information Systems

correlations across different technologies or time points to create

login, downloading materials, and submitting assignments (e.g.,

Table 1: Bivariate Correlations

Journal of Computer Information Systems

Table 2: Bivariate Analysis

is a measure of confidence in our observed effect sizes because

Journal of Computer Information Systems

Table 3: Homogeneity Tests for Moderator Effects

Legend: PU: Perceived usefulness; PEOU: Perceived ease of use;

since these two groups had similar p values

recommended by Hunter and Schmidt [57]. Fishers Z-test was

Implications for Research and Practice

Table 4: Moderator Analysis

Journal of Computer Information Systems

populations but not in others. In other words, we should open the

of this artifact can be incorporated within our current models of

Journal of Computer Information Systems

[11] *Aladwani, A.M. The development of two tools for

Relative importance of beliefs, ACM SIGMIS Database,

Journal of Computer Information Systems

[46] *Habelow, E.M. Factors related to the use of an electronic

[63] *Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. and Baroudi, J.J. A

Journal of Computer Information Systems

underlying postadoption phenomena, Management

[96] *Leong, L.Y.S. A test of the technology acceptance model

Journal of Computer Information Systems

acceptance model, Information & Management, (42: 2),

Journal of Computer Information Systems

[144] *Sun, H. and Zhang, P. Causal relationships between

[160] *Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. Why dont men ever

Journal of Computer Information Systems

Appendix A. Method for Correlation Analysis

In the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis technique, raw

Appendix B. Tests for Moderating Effects

Journal of Computer Information Systems

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

[11] *Aladwani, A.M. The development of two tools for

[46] *Habelow, E.M. Factors related to the use of an electronic

[63] *Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. and Baroudi, J.J. A

[96] *Leong, L.Y.S. A test of the technology acceptance model

[144] *Sun, H. and Zhang, P. Causal relationships between

[160] *Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. Why dont men ever