The Mediation of External Variables in the Technology Acceptance Model

Andrew Burton-Jones*, Geoffrey S. Hubona

Department of Computer Information Systems, J. Mack Robinson College of Business
Administration, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303 U.S.A.
Ph: +1.404.651.3880
* Corresponding author: E-mail: abjones@cis.gsu.edu

Abstract
Many studies have examined the original and revised versions of the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM). TAM specifies a pathway of technology acceptance, from external variables, to
beliefs, to system usage. While TAM has been widely tested, few have investigated the role of
external variables. We test TAMs assumption that the Perceived Ease-of-Use and Perceived
Usefulness constructs fully mediate external variables. Contrary to TAM, our survey results
indicate external variables can have direct effects on usage behavior over and above their indirect
effects mediated by TAM. TAM also appears significantly and consistently better at predicting
frequency rather than volume of usage.

Keywords: Technology Acceptance Model, individual differences, user acceptance, IS usage

Full citation:
Burton-Jones, A., and Hubona, G.S. The Mediation of External Variables in the
Technology Acceptance Model, Working Paper, Department of Computer Information
Systems, Georgia State University, 2003.

1. Introduction
Information systems (IS) researchers and practitioners regularly hear of large investments in
information technology. In 1999, for example, the IT budget of Federal Express was reported to
be $1.4 billion [3]. If these companies are to make a return from their IT investments, the new
systems must be utilized effectively [50]. Unfortunately, countless systems are never used to
their full potential; many simply remain unexplored, rejected, or forgotten [56].
Understanding the determinants of system use is therefore a cornerstone of IS research [25, 26].

Perceived
Usefulness
External
Variables

Attitude

Intention to
Use

Actual Use

Perceived
Ease-of-use

Figure 1: Original TAM (adapted from [22])

Of the suite of theories that explain technology acceptance, the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) [21] appears the most popular (see Figure 1). TAM explains IT-usage as a
function of a four-stage process: 1. external variables (i.e., users training) influence users
beliefs about using a system (e.g., their perceptions of a systems ease-of-use and usefulness), 2.
users beliefs influence their attitudes about using a system (i.e., favorable or unfavorable), 3.
users attitudes influence their intentions to use a system, and 4. users intentions determine their
level of usage. TAM is one of the most widely accepted theories in IS research. It has been
validated over a wide range of systems [21, 42, 46, 68], has proven to have reliable and valid
constructs [17, 28, 62], and routinely explains up to 40% of usage intentions and 30% of systems

usage [53, 73]. TAMs strength provides motivation to investigate aspects that have received
less attention to date and that could contribute to its continued improvement [48, 59].
A recent meta-analysis of TAM literature identified two aspects of TAM research that
have garnered little attention: the role of external variables and the role of different usage
measures [48]. Based on a detailed analysis of 22 TAM articles from six journals, Legris et al.
found that only 60% of TAM studies considered external variables and there was no clear
pattern with respect to the choice of the external variables considered. As the authors argued, it
is important to study external variables because they are the ultimate drivers of usage. Legris et
al. also found that many TAM studies examined intentions-to-use systems rather than usage
itself. Again this is unfortunate because systems usage is the dependent variable that we are
hoping to understand. The objective of this research is to provide theoretical and empirical
evidence on the role of external variables and usage measures in TAM.
Our objective in studying external variables is to test a key tenet of TAM: that each
construct in the chain from external variables to usage mediates prior constructs in the model.
For example, in relation to attitude: a key principleis that attitudes fully mediate the effects of
beliefs on intentionsmuch of its value is foregone if it only partially mediates the impact of
beliefs [22, p. 989]. TAM contains two belief constructs: perceived usefulness (PU) and
perceived ease-of-use (PEOU). Early tests of TAM found that attitude did not fully mediate PU
[22] (see Figure 1). Other studies confirmed this effect and TAM was refined to exclude
attitudebecause it did not fully mediate the effect of perceived usefulness on behavioral
intention [71 p. 240].
While past studies have examined the ability of attitudes to fully mediate beliefs, few
studies have tested whether beliefs fully mediate external variables. As shown in Figure 1, TAM

assumes that external variables predict usage only through their effect on PU and PEOU. While
many have tested the relative influence of different external variables on PEOU and PU [35, 38,
42], or the effects of external variables on usage intentions in the absence of PEOU and PU [20,
54, 75], few have tested TAMs assumption that PEOU and PU fully mediate the effect of
external variables on usage. Some recent studies have reported evidence that external variables
are fully mediated by PU and PEOU. For example, Agarwal and Prasad [2] found that the
effects of five external variables on users attitudes and usage intentions were fully mediated by
PU and PEOU. Likewise, in finding that PEOU fully mediated six external variables, Venkatesh
argued that this represents an important theoretical contribution since there has been limited
research testing the core assumption of mediation of the effect of other constructs on intention
by [PEOU and PU] [72 p. 358]. While the results from these studies appear convincing, it is
important to note that both studied usage intentions rather than usage itself. Therefore, in
contrast to Legris et al., we believe that it is too early to conclude that external variables are
fully mediated by PEOU and PU [48 p. 197].
In this study, we provide theoretical and empirical evidence for a direct effect of external
variables on self-reported usage over and above their mediated effect through PEOU and PU.
Theoretical evidence stems from three theories of social psychology: theory of reasoned action,
theory of planned behavior, and theories of habit formation. Empirical evidence stems from a
survey of 125 users in a large Government agency. Our findings indicate that TAMs fullmediation assumption is overstated. This is important because it legitimizes recent calls to
integrate TAM with other theories to provide a greater explanation of technology usage [16, 33,
48, 59, 76]. Our findings also support calls to more closely examine the usage construct [9, 19,

26, 48] as we find that the pattern of mediation differs markedly across measures. These
findings suggest profitable directions for further research on technology usage.
The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical model and the rationale
for predicting that external variables would have a direct and indirect effect on usage behavior.
Section 3 discusses our research design, measures, and instrument validation. Section 4 presents
the structural equation models we used to test our hypotheses. Sections 5 and 6 discuss and
conclude the paper.

2. Theoretical Model
Agarwal and Prasads study represents the first major test of the degree to which external
variables are mediated by TAMs belief constructs [2]. They studied the effect of five individual
user differences: age; division in an organization; level of education; prior experience; and
participation in training. They found that each of these individual differences was fully mediated
by PU and PEOU. They also asserted that if these results are further confirmed in subsequent
work, researchers [could] construct simpler models that exclude individual differences
altogether and this is precisely what theories such as TAM and TRA argue [2]. As outlined
further below, the results in [2] run counter to several theories of social psychology. Therefore,
our intention, following [12], was to test the generalizability of their findings. Figure 2 presents
our research model.

IS Usage

Individual
System
Experience
Level of
Education

TAM Belief Constructs

Perceived
Usefulness
Perceived
Ease of Use

Age

Usage
Volume

Usage
Frequency

* Legend: Solid lines: propositions proposed and tested in this paper.

Dashed paths: paths tested in this paper but hypotheses detailed in past literature.

Our propositions refer to the global construct of usage. In our analysis (s.4), we explore whether the results are
consistent across both measures of usage (frequency and volume).

Figure 2: The Research Model*

2.1 The Direct Effects of Individual Differences on Usage

Despite the strong evidence in [2] and [72] for PU and PEOU fully mediating the effect of
external variables, several studies in IS suggest that direct effects are possible. For example, in a
study of MBA students, Igbaria, et al. [41] found that several variables linked to the perceived
behavioral control construct from psychology had direct effects on use. They recommended
that the relationships be tested in the field to determine if they were generalizable. Taylor and
Todd [68] did not explicitly examine the mediation hypothesis but did find that the strength of
TAMs relationships differed depending on users level of experience. Experience, age, and
gender were also found to be important moderators in [76]. In [27], task characteristics were
found to have a significant direct effect on IT use. While they did not test its indirect effect
through TAMs belief constructs, their results suggest a potential unmediated effect.
Theories from social psychology suggest three reasons why individual differences would
directly affect usage behavior over and above their effect on PU and PEOU. According to these
5

theories, an individuals behavior is not just driven by evaluative beliefs and attitudes, but also
by subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and habits (see Table 1 below).

Table 1: Rationale for why PU and PEOU will not fully mediate individual differences
Theory

Rationale

Relevant references

Theory of Reasoned

Subjective norms directly affect intentions.

[30, 50, 73]

Action

PU & PEOU will not fully mediate individual

differences that affect subjective norms.

Theory of Planned

Perceived behavioral control directly affects

Behavior

intentions and behavior. PU and PEOU will

[6, 52, 69]

not fully mediate individual differences

associated with behavioral control.
Habits

Much behavior is habitual (non-cognitive).

[7, 57, 77]

PU and PEOU will not fully mediate

individual differences associated with habits.

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that attitudes and subjective norms
independently affect behavioral intentions. Subjective norms refer to ones beliefs that people
who are important to one think that one should perform the behavior [30]. Recent field studies
confirm the direct effect of subjective norms on intentions over and above PU and PEOU [37,
45, 54, 73, 74]. The theory of planned behavior suggests that individual differences could also
directly affect usage over and above PU and PEOU through their effect on users perceived
behavioral control (relating to their perceptions of constraints on their behavior). According to
[5, 6], perceived behavioral control directly affects intentions and behavior, over and above
attitudes and subjective norms. Several studies support the direct effect of perceived behavioral
control on intended and/or actual usage [15, 41, 52, 69].

Finally, theories of habit formation

suggest that behavior is often habitual rather than intentional [61].

TAM assumes that

individuals rationally calculate the costs and benefits of all their actions. However, a recent
meta-analysis found that habits directly affect behavior over and above beliefs, attitudes, norms,
behavioral control, and intentions [57]. In IS, the strength of habits was recently confirmed by
[75]. They found that after three months using an IS, the only significant predictor of later usage
was prior usage; attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions were all
insignificant. They did not include PU and PEOU in their study so the full mediation assumption
could not be tested.

Table 2: Proposition
Components of Proposition

Rationale for Incomplete

Relevant References

Mediation by PU &PEOU
P1a: System experience will directly

Habit, perceived behavioral

Morris & Venkatesh, 2000;

affect system usage over and above its

control

Mathieson et al. 2001.

P1b: Age will directly affect system

Habit, subjective norms,

Morris & Venkatesh, 2000;

usage over and above its effect on PU

perceived behavioral control

Mathieson et al. 2001;

effect on PU and PEOU

and PEOU

Brigman & Cherry, 2002

P1c: Level of education will directly

Subjective norms, perceived

affect systems usage over and above its

behavioral control

Mathieson et al. 2001

effect on PU & PEOU

Table 2, above, details our studys proposition, detailed separately for each individual
difference. As individual differences reflect multiple underlying variables [52, p. 90], Table 2
details the multiple reasons for expecting that PU and PEOU will not fully mediate their effects.

In relation to age, prior studies have used age as a proxy for users level of perceived
behavioral control [52].

Morris and Venkatesh [54] argued that age reduces perceived

behavioral control due to lower self-efficacy and cognitive skills (see also [13]). They also
argued that age increases the effect of subjective norms due to older workers greater need for
affiliation. Literature also suggests that habits can become stronger as one grows older because
routines become difficult to change [36, 51, 55].

Overall, the paths through habits and

behavioral control suggest that age negatively affects usage. The direction of the path through
subjective norms would depend on the organizational context. P1a is, thus, stated in a nondirectional form.
In relation to education and system experience, Mathieson et al. [52] argued that both
could reflect users level of internal capabilities (for example, knowledge of the technology and
task). While PEOU may partially mediate this effect [71], the theory of planned behavior
suggests that education and experience should have a positive direct effect on usage over and
above PEOU and PU [41, 52]. System experience should also have an additional effect through
habit formation. The longer that someone has used a system, the more likely it will become a
routine tool and users will not need to cognitively assess its PU or PEOU each time they use it;
use will have become habitual. Literature on subjective norms suggests that increased education
and experience should empower the user, thereby reducing the effect of social norms on their
behavior. The direction of the effect on users with less experience or education would depend on
whether subjective norms were favorable or unfavorable towards use of the particular technology
in the organization. Because the direct effect through perceived behavioral control and habits
would be positive but the direct effect through subjective norms could be positive or negative,
P1b and P1c are stated in a non-directional form.

2.3 The Indirect Effect of Individual Differences on Usage

An advantage of testing whether individual differences have a direct effect on usage is that they
are also expected to have an indirect effect on usage mediated by PEOU and PU. Thus, in the
one test, TAMs belief constructs can be shown to be potent but incomplete mediators [11].
As argued in [2], individual differences imply differences among users in learning. Age,
education, and experience all imply differences in the level and nature of an individuals
learning.

Theory of reasoned action [30], behavioral psychology [64], and social learning

theory [10] all support the view that differences in learning lead users to form different
evaluations of the consequences of using IT, represented in differences in PU and PEOU.
Several TAM researchers have examined the effects of system experience on users
beliefs about new IT. Drawing on attitude theories, Taylor and Todd [68] argued that increased
experience with IT allows a stronger relationship to form between beliefs, attitudes, and IT use.
Experience increases PEOU by helping users become familiar with the surface and deep
structure of the system and can increase PU by helping them understand how the system can be
used to increase performance. Indeed, past research has found a large positive effect of system
experience on performance using a system [29, 63]. Dishaw and Strong [27] found a positive
relationship between experience and PU.

Agarwal and Prasad [2] also found a positive

relationship between similar system experience and PEOU.

Zmud [79] suggested that users level of education influences their success in using IT.
Empirical studies also support the benefit of education on system use [24]. This should lead to a
positive association between education and PU because more educated users are more able to use
the IT to improve their performance.

Greater education should also increase PEOU by

improving users attitude and reducing anxiety [36, 40, 49], and by providing a stock of
knowledge that enables more effective and adaptive learning [2, 8].
Finally, there have been consistent relationships between users age and IT in the
literature. Older workers tend to resist change and avoid adopting new IT [36, 51, 55]. Older
users are, therefore, expected to perceive new IT as less useful (lower PU). Evidence suggests
that older users find it more difficult to learn and use unfamiliar technology [34]. Many older
workers also lack the level of computer skills of younger colleagues [2]. Even if they are willing
to adopt new IT, older workers may be less able to appreciate or understand the technology
(lower PEOU). While some of this is expected to affect usage behavior directly, we expect some
to be mediated by PEOU and PU. That is, we predict that PEOU and PU are accurate but
incomplete mediators. This was not supported empirically in [2], although they acknowledged
that it was unclear because they used a rough proxy for age (job tenure).

3.

Methodology

Like Agarwal and Prasad [2], and most recent TAM articles (see [32]), we adopted a survey
approach for our study.

The data collection procedures, instruments used, and instrument

validation procedures are outlined below.

3.1 Research method and data collection

Our respondents were 125 staff and professional employees of a large Government agency in the
eastern US states. A questionnaire solicited users beliefs and usage behaviors with respect to
two applications: email (MS Cc:mail) and word processing (Corel WordPerfect). Of the 125

10

subjects, 122 had used the email application and 118 had used the word processing application,
resulting in 240 usable responses.
We tested our research model using email and word processing applications for three
reasons. First, email and word processing have been examined in prior TAM studies so it allows
maximum comparison with other researchers results [14, 21, 22, 44].

If we had instead

examined new ITs not previously examined in the literature, it would be less convincing if we
found results contrary to TAM theory because they may merely represent technology-specific
differences.

Second, Agarwal and Prasad [2] recommended that the full- versus partial-

mediation hypothesis be tested over more than one IT. Testing across email and word processing
allows a test over two quite different technologies [43]. Email, for example, is conducive to
short frequent uses (to check for or send a message), while word processing is more conducive to
longer uses (such as writing a report). Rather than pool results for different ITs [see, e.g., 76],
our design allowed us to conduct a detailed analysis for each one. In particular, it allowed us to
test: (a) TAMs ability to predict usage of ITs with different usage patterns, and (b) whether the
strength of usage measures (in our case, frequency versus volume) depends on the type of IT.
Usage of the cc:mail electronic mail and WordPerfect word processing applications
were strictly voluntary within this organization. All employees had a number of similar,
alternative applications available for use. As an alternative to cc:mail, employees also had
Eudora and Pine electronic mail applications available. As an alternative to WordPerfect,
employees also had Works and Word to use. All six of these applications had been available to
the employees for a considerable length of time. They could choose whichever applications they
wanted to use by installing them from the organizational LAN. In fact, many of the employees
did have alternative applications installed on their desktop machines. Although it was not

11

possible to capture when each system initially, and individually, became available for use, this
site was chosen for this study because of the employees voluntary ability to use any particular
application.

3.2 Operationalization of constructs

While TAMs constructs have been validated extensively, many studies use different items [48].
Like Agarwal and Prasad [2], we used original TAM instruments [21, 23] for PEOU, PU, and
usage (see Appendix).
A pre-questionnaire solicited users: system experience, education, and age. System
experience was recorded as the total length of elapsed time (in months) using the application.
Education was recorded as: (1) high school graduate; (2) some college; (3) two-year associate
degree; (4) bachelors degree; (5) some graduate school; (6) masters degree; (7) doctoral degree.
The original self-reported educational data was rescaled such that: high school graduate = 12
years; some college = 13 years; two-year associate degree = 14 years; bachelors degree = 16
years; some graduate school = 17 years; masters degree = 18 years; and doctoral degree = 21
years. Age was also self-reported by the users.
In relation to system usage, an important aim of our study was to investigate whether the
results of the hypothesized models were consistent across different usage measures [48]. We are
unaware of any concentrated validation of the usage construct in the literature. Many studies,
including some of the most comprehensive [76], just use one measure. A recurring theme in
recent studies is that IT-usage might be more complex than previously recognized [3, 19, 26, 47,
65]. Therefore, this paper decomposes usage into two sub-dimensions (frequency and volume)
that have been used frequently in past research. Frequency represents a users report of the

12

number of times they used a system over a period (for example, during a week or month) [for
example, see 1, 17, 18, 19, 38, 39, 49, 63, 66]. Volume represents the amount of time that the
user used a system over the same period [for example, see 1, 17, 24, 38, 39, 62, 64, 69]. While
studies have contrasted TAMs ability to predict usage measured by different methods [66], no
studies have examined TAMs relative ability to predict different usage measures. We believed,
however, that there was good reason to expect TAM to explain frequency better than volume.
As volume is factor of frequency as well as the length of use on each occasion, more antecedents
should influence its value. For example, a user may use a word processor the same number of
times (frequency) on consecutive days but for different lengths of time. The difference in time is
meaningful, and may be predicted by non-TAM constructs such as the users mood, unexpected
changes in the scope of the task, the availability of peers to help carry the workload, etc. As
volume is influenced by more factors than frequency, we expected that the antecedents in any
parsimonious model such as TAM should explain less variance in volume than frequency.

3.3 Instrument validation

To perform our analysis we used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) tool (PLS-GRAPH version 3.00 build 279). SEM allows researchers to simultaneously
examine the structural component (path model) and measurement component (factor model) in
the one model [32].

13

Table 3: Email and Word Processing Factor Loadings

Item
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12

Email Factor Loadings

PU
PEOU
0.03
0.86
0.01
0.93
0.05
0.92
-0.14
0.99
0.10
0.87
0.14
0.82
-0.08
0.97
0.01
0.93
0.05
0.92
0.02
0.87
0.05
0.83
0.09
0.88

Word Processing Factor Loadings

Item
PU
PEOU
Q1
0.04
0.92
Q2
-0.06
0.97
Q3
-0.01
0.97
Q4
-0.00
0.96
Q5
0.09
0.87
Q6
0.24
0.74
Q7
-0.07
0.94
Q8
-0.01
0.92
Q9
0.16
0.84
Q10
0.19
0.79
Q11
-0.05
0.97
Q12
0.11
0.88

* Principal components factor analysis with promax rotation

We performed our validation by constructing two PLS models, one for each application.
The internal consistency (reliability) statistics for all constructs in both models were above .96.
This exceeded the .7 rule-of-thumb [31] and confirmed the scales reliability.

We tested

convergent validity by examining whether all items loaded highly on their respective construct in
PLS. A common rule of thumb is a loading greater than .7 [78]. In the email and word
processor models model, all items loaded on their constructs from 0.87 to 0.96 (results not
shown here), indicating convergent validity. To test discriminant validity, we tested the item-tototal correlations for each system. As shown in Table 3 above, the items loaded cleanly on each
construct, indicating good discriminant validity.

14

Table 4: Email Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Matrix*, a

PU

PEOU

Vol

Freq

Exp

Educ

Age

PU

.917

PEOU

.534

.914

Vol

.28

.084

Freq

.422

.286

.323

Exp

.299

.184

.402

.37

Educ

.226

.152

.004

.16

.136

Age

.16

-.026

.054

.135

.279

.103

The principal diagonal represents the average variance extracted for each construct. For
discriminant validity it should be greater than the off-diagonal entry in its row and column.
a
PU (perceived usefulness), PEOU (perceived ease-of-use), Educ (education), Freq (frequency),
Vol (volume), Exp (system experience).

Table 5: Word Processor Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Matrix

PU

PEOU

Vol

Freq

Exp

PU

.937

PEOU

.648

.917

Vol

.285

.245

Freq

.416

.25

.562

Exp

.147

.066

.14

.228

Educ

.17

.197

-.005

.129

.134

Age

-.127

-.212

-.013

.11

-.091

Educ

Age

1
1
1
.109

We also tested discriminant validity by examining the average variance shared between a
construct and its measures (AVE) [32]. Tables 4 and 5 present the AVE matrices for the two
PLS models. Each matrix supports our scales discriminant validity, as the elements in the
principal diagonal are always higher than the off-diagonal elements in their corresponding row
and column.
15

System
Experience

0.16

Beliefs About
Usefulness
R2 = 0.36

0.12

Usage
Volume
R2 = 0.08

0.38

0.12
Level of
Education

0.33

0.49

Usage
Frequency
R2 = 0.18

0.19
-0.09
0.14

Age

Beliefs About
Ease of Use
R2 = 0.06

0.08

-0.09
Significant path (p < 0.05)
Non-significant path
Path coefficients are reported.

Figure 3: Testing the Model for Mediating Effects with Email System

System
Experience

0.16

Beliefs About
Usefulness
R2 = 0.36

0.12
0.12
Level of
Education

0.26
0.29

0.49
0.19
-0.11
0.14

Age

Beliefs About
Ease of Use
R2 = 0.06

0.08

0.38
Usage
Volume
R2 = 0.21

-0.08
-0.09

Usage
Frequency
R2 = 0.25
0.01

0.26
0.05

-0.09

Significant path (p < 0.05)

Non-significant path
Path coefficients are reported.

Figure 4: Testing the Model for Direct Effects with Email System

16

System
Experience

0.10

Beliefs About
Usefulness
R2 = 0.43

0.03

0.22
0.44

0.02
Level of
Education

Usage
Volume
R2 = 0.09

0.64

Usage
Frequency
R2 = 0.17

0.02
0.10
Beliefs About
Ease of Use
R2 = 0.09

0.22
Age

-0.03

-0.24
Significant path (p < 0.05)
Non-significant path
Path coefficients are reported.

Figure 5: Testing the Model for Mediating Effects with Word Processing System

System
Experience

0.10

Beliefs About
Usefulness
R2 = 0.43

0.03
0.02
Level of
Education

0.20
0.40

0.64
0.02

Age

Beliefs About
Ease of Use
R2 = 0.09

-0.09

Usage
Volume
R2 = 0.11

0.06

Usage
Frequency
R2 = 0.23

0.14
0.22

0.12

0.01

0.18

0.18
0.14

-0.24

Significant path (p < 0.05)

Non-significant path
Path coefficients are reported.

Figure 6: Testing the Model for Direct Effects with Word Processing System

17

4. Results
Figures 3 and 4, above, show the results of our PLS models for the email application. Figures 5
and 6 show the results for the word processor application. The models indicate significant (p <
0.05) and non-significant path coefficients, and the variance explained in the predicted constructs
(PEOU, PU, usage volume, and usage frequency). Each paths significance was estimated by a
bootstrapping procedure [52, 60] using 200 resamples, which tends to provide reasonable
standard error estimates [18].
Overall, the result for our proposition for the direct effect of external variables on usage
was: (a) support for a direct effect from system experience on IT use for both technologies (P1a),
(b) support for a direct effect from users age on IT use on one technology (P1b), and (c) no
support for a direct effect on use from users education on either technology (P1c). We discuss
the results for each application in turn. For the email application, Figure 4 reports a significant
direct effect of system experience on usage volume and frequency over and above its indirect
effects through PEOU and PU, supporting P1a. There were no direct effects of age and level of
education, however, on either measure of usage, consistent with Agarwal and Prasads [2]
results. Both models (Figures 3 and 4) also showed significantly higher explained variance for
frequency than for volume, confirming our expectations.
For the word processor application, there were significant direct effects of system
experience and age on usage frequency, over and above their respective indirect effects through
PEOU and PU, supporting P1a and P1b. Again, consistent with [2], however, level of education
had no direct effect on either usage measure (P1c). In relation to the usage measures, both
models for word processing (Figures 5 and 6) explained variance in usage frequency better than
volume. This was expected and was consistent with the results for email.

18

Table 6: Summary of Results

R2 (No Direct

R2 (With Direct

Effects)

Effects)

Increase in R2 by Introducing Direct Effects

Volume Frequency Volume Frequency Volume

Significant

Frequency

difference?
Word

.088

.174

.107

.233

22%

No

Email

.084

.183

.211

.25

251% Yes (p<.01)

Significant
difference?

34%

Yes (p<0.01)

37%

Yes (p<0.01)

To further examine the result of introducing direct versus indirect effects for email and
word-processing, Table 6 reports the change in usage variance explained (R2) resulting from
introducing direct effects. Overall, introducing direct effects increased the R2 for usage by 22%
to 251%, providing strong support to the studys proposition. As Table 6 shows, introducing
direct effects significantly increased R2 for both usage frequency and volume for email. For
word processing, introducing direct effects also led to a significant increase in R2 for usage
frequency, and an increase (while insignificant) in R2 for usage volume.
Finally, we discuss the traditional mediated pathways predicted by TAM (i.e., the
effect of each external variable on PEOU and PU, and the effect of PEOU and PU on usage).
Like many past TAM studies, we find that PU is a more powerful predictor of usage than PEOU
[48]. While PEOU has a significant effect on PU, it has no significant effect on usage volume or
frequency in our study. These results were consistent across technologies. In relation to the
external variables, we expected that experience, education, and age would each significantly
affect PEOU and PU (refer section 2.3). However, our results show strong differences across
technologies.

System experience has a significant effect on PEOU for email, but has no

significant effect on PEOU or PU for word processing. Level of education and age have a
significant effect on PEOU for word processing but have no significant effect on PEOU and PU

19

for email. While unexpected, these results uphold Agarwal and Prasads [2] suggestion that
researchers should examine more than one IT to control for IT differences, particularly when
studying external variables.

5. Discussion
We discuss our results with respect to external variables, usage measures, and the relationships
predicted by TAM. We then discuss the limitations of the study, and its implications for research
and practice.

5.1 External Variables and TAM

Our results suggest that TAMs full-mediation assumption is overstated. We found that external
variables can have a strong direct effect on usage over and above their effect on attitudes and
beliefs. In the case of email, system experience had a direct effect on frequency ( = 0.26) and
volume ( = 0.38). In the case of word processing, both system experience ( = 0.18) and age (
= 0.18) had direct effects on usage frequency. As shown in Table 6, including the direct effect of
external variables can significantly improve predictions of IT use (by up to 251%).
Our results for full- versus partial-mediation, however, are also marked by inconsistency.
The magnitude of the direct effects from external variables differed across usage measures, ITs,
and external variables. The results suggest that mediation of external variables is more complex
than TAM research initially assumed. This is an important finding because it suggests that
neither a partial- nor full-mediation assumption is warranted. Instead, the effects of external
variables appear contingent on the nature of the IT, usage measure, and external variable. A
possible rationale is that the two variables that did directly affect usage (age and experience)

20

were both associated with habits, whereas the variable that did not directly affect usage
(education) was not associated with habits (see Table 2). This may indicate that habitual
behavior is a stronger cause of direct effects than the other mechanisms (subjective norms and
perceived behavioral control). Future research could test this hypothesis and determine whether
habits differ across different usage measures, e.g., frequency and volume.

5.2 Usage Measures and TAM

Compared to the results for external variables, our results for the different usage measures were
consistent and in line with our expectations. Each model predicted usage frequency better than
usage volume. This was expected because volume was a more complex measure and would be
influenced by more antecedent variables than included in TAM. The consistency of the results is
important because many TAM studies have only used one measure of usage [73, 76], or have
taken several measures but factor-analyzed them so that they could be examined as a single
construct [69]. Our results corroborate recent arguments that the usage construct may be more
complex than previously recognized [26] and the need to research different dimensions of the
construct [19]. They also corroborate the call in [48] to examine usage rather than intentions.
Many TAM studies have investigated intentions rather than usage [4, 2, 39, 71]. While such
studies often explain substantial variance in intentions [73], practitioners are ultimately interested
in explaining usage rather than intended usage. In our study, the variance explained in usage
was quite low (0.03 to 0.25). The results also showed a steep and consistent drop in explained
variance for usage volume compared to frequency. Two explanations for this appear plausible:
1. the more complex construct was subject to measurement error, or 2. TAM does not predict
complex measures of usage as successfully as simple measures.

21

5.3 Expected TAM Relationships

While TAM has been supported over many studies, it is important to test its effects over a wide
range of environments and technologies. Our results showed that the internal TAM model
(beliefsusage) was consistent across technologies but that the effect of external variables on
TAMs belief constructs was quite IT-specific. This is an important finding and upholds Legris
[48] argument that external variables should be studied more systematically. In particular, the
results legitimize recent moves to integrate TAM with additional theories to account for
variables external to TAM, e.g., theories of trust [33], task-technology fit [27], or consumer
behavior [16]. While still in their early stages, this direction of research should ultimately enable
technology acceptance researchers to make much more precise and contextual predictions.

5.4 Limitations
The implications of our study should be considered in light of its limitations. Our studys
internal validity would have been stronger if we measured the relative strength of each path (e.g.,
subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and habits) between users individual differences
and usage. However, our objective was to test whether PEOU and PU partially or fully mediated
the effects of individual differences. While measuring the relative effect of each path would
have provided further explanations of our results, it was not necessary for achieving our
objective. A more serious internal validity threat was that we did not control for users tasks
while using their IT. This left us unable to investigate task-technology-fit explanations of the
results. While our approach was consistent with past studies, future researchers may benefit
from controlling for the nature of users tasks [27].

In terms of construct validity, we

acknowledge that our IS usage measures could contain measurement error if users had different

22

understandings of what it meant to use a system (e.g., opening and closing the package versus
checking or sending messages). While we used traditional measures of usage [23], future studies
could replicate our work using alternative measures. In terms of statistical conclusion validity,
the explained variance in usage (particularly usage volume) was quite low. Some relationships
may therefore reflect greater statistical, than practical, significance. Finally, in relation to
external validity, our design was strengthened by examining two technologies, but limited by
looking at them in only one division. While our approach was maximally comparable to [2], we
acknowledge that a wider sampling would have improved generalizability.

5.5 Implications for research

Our study bears two implications for research. First, the results provide evidence that the fullmediation assumption of TAM is overstated. While some recent studies suggested this result, we
believe this is the first field study to show such effects. While our result regarding the fullmediation assumption is important for the perspective of specifying and extending the TAM
model, we believe the more interesting aspect is that the full- versus partial-mediation was
contingent on the nature of the individual difference variable and IT being considered. We
highlight Dishaw and Strongs [27] recent attempt to integrate task-technology-fit theories with
TAM. Extending their work in relation to other external variables, such as users individual
differences, appears very promising.
Second, our results in relation to usage measures suggest that TAM may not be a
powerful model for predicting complex measures of use. We acknowledge that our results in
relation to this relationship are preliminary. We only measured two aspects of usage.

We

recommend future research investigate a wider set of usage measures to determine if our

23

proposition is supported again. Clearly, if the trend in explained variance continues to drop
when more complex measures are used (as in this study), TAM may be shown to be a poor
theory at predicting complex usage. More research may be needed to develop other theories
explaining complex or, especially, effective usage [26, 47, 76].

5.6 Implications for practice

Our study bears two primary implications for practice. First, PU and PEOU were shown to be
important determinants of system usage in the field. This offers management the opportunity to
increase systems usage by making the systems more usable and useful, for example, through
refined systems selection or IT training methods. Our results also show, however, that users
individual differences such as age and experience can have a direct effect over and above their
indirect effect on PU and PEOU. This suggests that managers cannot ignore user differences,
but instead should tailor their systems selection and training methods to meet the requirements of
different users. Organizations should also consider the potential costs reflected by higher system
usage. System experience had a strong unmediated effect on usage in our study. Such usage
may be partly habitual. Organizations must therefore assess whether such usage is desired or
whether they would prefer their older or more experienced users to remain open to new ideas,
new systems, and new ways of working [see, further, 54]. Finally, organizations must also be
cognizant of the unexplained variance in our models.

More research will be needed by

practitioners and researchers alike to determine the other variables affecting usage [48, 59].
Second, our study also bears implications for the measurement of usage in practice.
While predicting IT usage has been a key aspect of IS research, it is also a useful metric to
monitor in practice. It gives firms an indication of users adoption of IT and the firms return on

24

IT investments [25]. Our results suggest that organizations should measure a range of usage
measures. The results also suggest that more complex measures of usage are significantly more
difficult to explain than simple (but perhaps less meaningful) measures. Until refined measures
for IT usage emerge, we recommend practitioners adopt a suite of metrics (objective and
subjective) to obtain an overall view of users IT acceptance.

6. Conclusions
This objective of this study was to contribute to the continued improvement of models of
technology acceptance. One of the strongest theories, TAM, has been shown to be a valid and
powerful model in past studies. Drawing on a recent review of TAM research [48], this paper
investigated two aspects of TAM (external variables and usage measures) that have received less
attention in the literature. TAM (and the theory of reasoned action) propose that the effect of
external variables is completely mediated by users beliefs (PU and PEOU). We tested this
proposition following a similar methodology to that used in [2] that upheld the full-mediation
effect. Our results show that the full-mediation hypothesis is overstated. The results further
suggest that the nature of the relationship should not be considered full- or partial-mediation, but
instead, a contingent mediation, depending on the nature of the technology and external variable
being considered. Our results also highlight the different (and significantly poorer) results that
occur when more complex measures of usage are used. This evidence provides further fuel to
recent calls to examine more complex measures of usage and theories that can predict how such
usage occurs.

25

Appendix
This appendix reports the questions used for the TAM constructs for Microsoft cc:mail. The
questions for Corel WordPerfect were identical except for the name of system.

Perceived Usefulness*
1. Using cc:mail enables me to accomplish job tasks more quickly.
2. Using cc:mail improves my job performance.
3. Using cc:mail increases my job productivity.
4. Using cc:mail enhances my effectiveness on the job.
5. Using cc:mail makes it easier to do my job.
6. I find cc:mail useful in my job.
*

Measured on a 7-point likert-type scale from 1 (extremely likely) to 7 (extremely unlikely)

Perceived Ease-of-Use*
1. Learning to operate cc:mail was easy for me.
2. I find it easy to get cc:mail to do what I want it to do.
3. My interactions with cc:mail are clear and understandable.
4. I find cc:mail to be flexible to interact with.
5. It was easy for me to become skillful at using cc:mail.
6. I find cc:mail easy to use.
*

Measured on a 7-point likert-type scale from 1 (extremely likely) to 7 (extremely unlikely)

Usage Frequency
1. Dont use at all.
26

2. Use less than once a week.

3. Use about once each week.
4. Use several times each week.
5. Use about once each day.
6. Use several times a day.

Usage Volume
Please specify (estimate) how many hours each week you normally spend using
cc:mail:_____hours.

27

References
[1]

Adams, D.A., R.R. Nelson, and P.A. Todd, Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage
of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16 (2), 1992, p. 227-247.

[2]

Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad, Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new
information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30 (2), 1999, p. 361-391.

[3]

Agarwal, R., Individual acceptance of information technologies, in Framing the Domains

of IT Management: Projecting the Future through the Past, R.W. Zmud, Editor. 2000,
Pinnaflex Educational Resources: Cincinnati, Ohio. p. 85-104.

[4]

Agarwal, R. and E. Karahanna, Time flies when youre having fun: Cognitive absorption
and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24 (4), 2000, p. 665-694.

[5]

Ajzen, I., From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior, in Action-Control:

From Cognition to Behavior, J. Kuhi and J. Beckmann, Editors. 1985, Springer:
Heidelberg. p. 11-39.

[6]

Ajzen, I., The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 1991, p. 179-211.

[7]

Ajzen, I., Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action
perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (2), 2002, p. 107-122.

[8]

Ashcraft, M.H., Cognition. 3rd ed. 2002, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

[9]

Bajaj, A. and S.B. Nidumolu, A feedback model to understand information systems

usage. Information & Management, 33, 1998, p. 213-224.

[10]

Bandura, A., Social Learning Theory. 1977, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

28

[11]

Barron, R.M. and D.A. Kenny, The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1986, p. 1173-1182.

[12]

Berthon, P., et al., Potential research space in MIS: A framework for envisioning and
evaluating research replication, extension, and generation. Information Systems
Research, 13 (4), 2002, p. 416-427.

[13]

Brigman, S. and K.E. Cherry, Age and skilled performance: Contributions of working
memory and processing speed. Brain and Cognition, 50, 2002, p. 242-256.

[14]

Chau, P.Y.K., An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 13 (2), 1996, p. 185-204.

[15]

Chau, P.Y.K. and P.J.-H. Hu, Investigating healthcare professionals' decisions to accept
telemedicine technology: An empirical test of competing theories. Information &
Management, 39, 2002, p. 297-311.

[16]

Chen, L.-d., M.L. Gillenson, and D.L. Sherrell, Enticing online consumers: An extended
technology acceptance perspective. Information & Management, 39, 2002, p. 705-719.

[17]

Chin, W.W. and P.A. Todd, On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation
modeling in MIS research: A note of caution. MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 1995, p. 237-246.

[18]

Chin, W.W., PLS-Graph User's Guide, Version 3.0. 2001.

[19]

Chin, W.W. and B.L. Marcolin, The future of diffusion research. The DATA BASE for
Advances in Information Systems, 32 (3), 2001, p. 8-12.

[20]

Compeau, D., C.A. Higgins, and S. Huff, Social cognitive theory and individual reactions
to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 1999, p. 145-158.

29

[21]

Davis, F., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and end user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 1989, p. 318-339.

[22]

Davis, F.D., R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology:
A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 1989, p. 982-1003.

[23]

Davis, F.D., User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user

perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38,
1993, p. 475-487.

[24]

Davis, L.D. and F.D. Davis, The effect of training techniques and personal characteristics
on training end users of information systems. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 7 (2), 1990, p. 93-110.

[25]

DeLone, W.H. and E.R. McLean, Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3 (1), 1992, p. 60-95.

[26]

DeLone, W.H. and E.R. McLean, The DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: A ten-year review. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4),
2003, p. 9-30.

[27]

Dishaw, M.T. and D.M. Strong, Extending the technology acceptance model with tasktechnology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36 (1), 1999, p. 9-21.

[28]

Doll, W.J., A. Hendrickson, and X. Deng, Using Davis's perceived usefulness and easeof-use instruments for decision making: A confirmatory and multigroup invariance
analysis. Decision Sciences, 29 (4), 1999, p. 839-869.

[29]

Egan, D.E. and L.M. Gomez, Assaying, isolating, and accommodating individual
differences in learning a complex skill, in Individual Differences in Cognition, R. Dillon,
Editor. 1985, Academic Press: New York.

30

[30]

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to

Theory and Research. 1975, Reading: MA: Addison-Wesley.

[31]

Fornell, C. and D. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1981, p. 39-50.

[32]

Gefen, D., D.W. Straub, and M.-C. Boudreau, Structural equation modeling and
regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of The AIS, 4 (7), 2000, p.
1-77.

[33]

Gefen, D., E. Karahanna, and D.W. Straub, Trust and TAM in online shopping: An
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27 (1), 2003, p. 1-40.

[34]

Gomez, L.M., D.E. Egan, and C. Bowers, Learning to use a text editor: Some learner
characteristics that predict success. Human Computer Interaction, 2, 1986, p. 1-23.

[35]

Hackbarth, G., V. Grover, and M.Y. Yi, Computer playfulness and anxiety: Positive and
negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use. Information
& Management, 40, 2003, p. 221-232.

[36]

Harrison, A.W. and R.K. Rainer, The influence of individual differences on skill in enduser computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9 (1), 1992, p. 93-111.

[37]

Hartwick, J.H. and H. Barki, Explaining the role of user participation in information
system use. Management Science, 40, 1994, p. 440-465.

[38]

Hong, W., et al., Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical

examination of individual differences and system characteristics. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18 (3), 2001/2002, p. 97-124.

31

[39]

Hu, P.J., et al., Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance
of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16 (2), 1999,
p. 91-112.

[40]

Igbaria, M. and S. Parsuraman, A path analytic study of individual characteristics,

computer anxiety, and attitudes towards microcomputers. Journal of Management, 15 (3),
1989, p. 373-388.

[41]

Igbaria, M., T. Guimaraes, and G.B. Davis, Testing the determinants of microcomputer
usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11
(4), 1995, p. 87-114.

[42]

Igbaria, M., et al., Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural
equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21 (3), 1997, p. 279-305.

[43]

Jarvenpaa, S.L. and D.S. Staples, The use of collaborative electronic media for
information sharing: An exploratory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 9, 2000, p. 129-154.

[44]

Karahanna, E. and D. Straub, The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and

perceived ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35, 1999, p. 237-250.

[45]

Karahanna, E., D.W. Straub, and N.L. Chervany, Information technology adoption across
time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS
Quarterly, 23 (2), 1999, p. 183-213.

[46]

Karahanna, E. and M. Limayem, E-Mail and V-Mail Usage: Generalizing across

technologies. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10 (1),
2000, p. 49-66.

32

[47]

Lassila, K.S. and J.C. Brancheau, Adoption and utilization of commercial software
packages: Exploring utilization equilibria, transitions, triggers, and tracks. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 16 (2), 1999, p. 63-90.

[48]

Legris, P., J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, Why do people use information technology? A
critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40,
2003, p. 191-204.

[49]

Lucas Jr, H.C., Empirical Evidence for a Descriptive Model of Implementation. MIS
Quarterly, 2 (2), 1978, p. 27-41.

[50]

Lucas Jr, H.C. and V.K. Spitler, Technology use and performance: A field study of
broker workstations. Decision Sciences, 30 (2), 1999, p. 1-21.

[51]

Majchrzak, A. and J. Cotton, A longitudinal study of adjustment to technological change:

From mass to computer-automated batch production. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 61, 1988, p. 43-66.

[52]

Mathieson, K., E. Peacock, and W.W. Chin, Extending the technology acceptance Model:
the influence of perceived user resources. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information
Systems, 32 (3), 2001, p. 86-112.

[53]

Meister, D.B. and D.R. Compeau. Infusion Of innovation adoption: An individual

perspective. in Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada
(ASAC). 2002. May 25-28, Winnipeg.

[54]

Morris, M.G. and V. Venkatesh, Age differences in technology adoption decisions:

Implications for a changing workforce. Personnel Psychology, 53, 2000, p. 375-403.

[55]

Nickel, G.S. and J.N. Pinto, The computer attitude scale. Computers in Human Behavior,
2, 1986, p. 301-306.

33

[56]

Orlikowski, W.J., Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for
studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11 (4), 2000, p. 404-428.

[57]

Oullette, J.A. and W. Wood, Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes
by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 1998, p.
54-74.

[58]

Pinsonneault, A. and S. Rivard, Information technology and the nature of managerial

work: From the productivity paradox to the Icarus paradox. MIS Quarterly, 22 (3), 1998,
p. 287-311.

[59]

Plouffe, C.R., J.S. Hulland, and M. Vandenbosch, 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, p.
208-222.

[60]

Ravichandran, T. and A. Rai, Quality management in systems development: An

organizational system perspective. MIS Quarterly, 24 (3), 2000, p. 381-415.

[61]

Ronis, D.L., J.F. Yates, and J.P. Kirscht, Attitudes, decisions, and habits as determinants
of repeated behavior, in Attitude Structure and Function, A.R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler,
and A.G. Greenwald, Editors. 1989, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey. p. 213239.

[62]

Segars, A.H. and V. Grover, Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A
confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 18 (4), 1993, p. 517-525.

[63]

Singley, M.K. and J.R. Anderson, The Transfer of Text Editing Skill. International
Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 1979, p. 403-423.

34

[64]

Skinner, B.F., Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. 1969,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[65]

Spitler, V.K. and M.J. Gallivan, Rethinking information technology use for knowledge
work: Transparency of information technology. Oklahoma Workshop on Information
Systems, R. Zmud (ed.), May 2000

[66]

Straub, D., M. Limayem, and E. Karahanna-Evaristo, Measuring system usage:

Implications for IS theory testing. Management Science, 41, 1995, p. 1328-1342.

[67]

Szajna, B., Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model.

Management Science, 42 (1), 1996, p. 85-92.

[68]

Taylor, S. and P. Todd, Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly,
19, 1995, p. 561-570.

[69]

Taylor, S. and P.A. Todd, Understanding information technology usage: A test of

competing models. Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 1995, p. 144-176.

[70]

Thompson, R.L., C.A. Higgins, and J.M. Howell, Towards a conceptual model of
utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15 (1), 1991, p. 125-143.

[71]

Venkatesh, V., Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic
motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 1999, p. 239-260.

[72]

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, p. 342-365.

[73]

Venkatesh, V. and F.D. Davis, A Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance

model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 2000, p. 186-204.

35

[74]

Venkatesh, V. and M.G. Morris, Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS
Quarterly, 24 (1), 2000, p. 115-139.

[75]

Venkatesh, V., M.G. Morris, and P.L. Ackerman, A Longitudinal field investigation of
gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83 (1), 2000, p. 33-60.

[76]

Venkatesh, V., M.G. Morris, and G.B. Davis, and F.D. Davis, User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view, 27 (3), MIS Quarterly, 2003, in press.

[77]

Verplanken, A., et al., Habit versus planned behavior: A field experiment. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 27, 1998, p. 539-560.

[78]

Yoo, Y. and M. Alavi, Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence,
task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25 (3), 2001, p. 371-390.

[79]

Zmud, R.W., Individual differences and MIS success: A review of the empirical
literature. Management Science, 25 (1), 1979, p. 966-979.

36