Information & Management 45 (2008) 387–393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im

Moderating effects of Job Relevance and Experience on mobile wireless

technology acceptance: Adoption of a smartphone by individuals
Sang Hyun Kim *
School of Business Administration, Kyungpook National University, 702-701 Sankyuk-dong, Puk-ku, Daegu, South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: My study extended TAM to include individuals’ intention to use mobile wireless technology (MWT). It
Received 8 May 2006 added two new constructs, Perceived Cost Savings and Company’s Willingness to Fund, and two causal
Received in revised form 1 June 2007 relationships, Job Relevance and Experience, as moderating effects. The 286 sets of data collected in an
Accepted 29 May 2008
online survey were tested against the model using SEM. Results supported my new model: the new
Available online 10 July 2008
constructs and variables accounted for 62.7% of the variance found in an individual’s behavioral intention
to use MWT. The path coefficients between the constructs ranged from 0.26 to 0.85 also supporting the
Keywords:
model.
Technology acceptance model (TAM)
Mobile wireless technology
ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Job Relevance
Experience
Perceived Cost Savings
Company’s Willingness to Fund

1. Introduction Kwon and Chidambaram [13] modified TAM to examine the

Many people and organizations today use mobile wireless
technology (MWT) via WAP phones, handheld devices, smart-
phones, wireless laptops, m-commerce, etc. However, despite the
market growth, research examining key factors affecting user
behavior and its adoption are rare. What is missing is an
understanding of the motivation resulting in its adoption from a
user viewpoint. I used one MWT – the smartphone – as a target
technology: it is a wireless telephone set with computer-enabled
features. My unit of analysis was the employee in an organization.
2. TAM and related empirical studies
Fig. 1 shows the well-known TAM; in it, the PEU is assumed to
affect the user’s intention indirectly through PU. These two beliefs
influence a user’s attitude (A) toward using and this, in turn,
determines BI to use the system. Then, information systems usage
is determined by behavioral intention. Also, the PEU influences the
PU, which has been found to be a more important factor than PEU
in determining whether to use a technology [24].
* Tel.: +82 53 950 5877; fax: +82 53 950 6247.
E-mail address: ksh@knu.ac.kr.
extent of the adoption of cellular phone technology. They added
other variables, such as enjoyment, social pressure, and apprehen-
siveness. Liang et al. [15] added personal innovativeness,
compatibility, and supports and found that PU and PEU were
the main factors that determined actual usage by health
professionals. PU mediated PEU, Job Relevance, and compatibility
for PDA usage. Lu et al. [16] investigated the mobile wireless
Internet, suggesting that technological complexity, individual
differences, facilitating conditions, social influences, and wireless
trust environment had a positive effect on both long- and near-
term usefulness and ease of use; these, in turn, had a positive
influence on attitude and intention to use the Wireless Internet via
Mobile Technology. Pedersen [19] added subjective norm and
behavioral control to examine the reliability of TAM in analyzing
mobile wireless service, adding a subjective norm and behavioral
control; however, only the former had a significant effect on
intention to use.
3. Research model and hypotheses
My model is presented in Fig. 2. It introduces two new variables
– Perceived Cost Savings (PCSs) and Company’s Willingness to
Fund (CWF) – as affecting a user interest in adopting or rejecting
use of a smartphone. Costs and similar variables, such as resource
availability and user support, have been seen as important

0378-7206/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.05.002
388 S.H. Kim / Information & Management 45 (2008) 387–393

Fig. 1. The technology acceptance model [25].

determinants influencing a user in adopting new technology. For
example, Wu and Wang [23] integrated innovation and diffusion
theory, perceived risk, and cost to examine factors determining
users’ m-Commerce acceptance; they found that cost significantly
affected the user’s BI. Moreover, various types of support, such as
technical, legal, management, etc., were found to be important [8].
I assumed therefore that PCS and CWF would have a positive
impact on use of a smartphone and retained PEU and PU in the
model to determine whether their impact predicted user adoption
of a smartphone. Finally, Job Relevance and Experience were
introduced as moderators.
3.1. Model variables
and space. By using it, users expect to perform better in their jobs.
Thus, my first hypothesis was
Hypothesis 1. PU is directly related to BI to use MWT.
3.1.2. Perceived ease of use
Prior work has shown that PEU is significantly linked to
intention via its impact on PU. It directly influences user
acceptance and indirectly affects usefulness, where the direct
impact was most relevant. Empirical studies, however, found
mixed results about PEU: some found it to be non-significant [5].
Therefore, I decided to investigate the effect of PEU on PU and BI to
use the MWT. This resulted in a pair of hypotheses:

3.1.1. Perceived usefulness Hypothesis 2a. PEU is positively related to PU.

In the model, PU is the extent to which an individual believes
Hypothesis 2b. PEU is positively related to BI to use MWT.
that using MWT will improve his or her performance, i.e., helps
them conduct their tasks or jobs. The concept of PU was expanded
to include both near- and long-term consequences. In the context 3.1.3. Behavioral intention
of an acceptance of MWT, PU is a near-term consequence since TRA originally suggested that the use of a technology was
MWT allows people to blur the boundaries once imposed by time determined by BI: the strength of an individual’s intention to

Fig. 2. Research model with hypotheses.

 S.H. Kim / Information & Management 45 (2008) 387–393
perform a behavior. In my study, the attitude construct was not
included in order to simplify the model. Actual usage was
measured in terms of the frequency of use (how often) and its
volume (how much). Thus, the third hypothesis was
Hypothesis 3. BI is positively related to Actual Usage (AU) of MWT.
3.2. Job Relevance as a moderating variable
Individuals have different perceptions of outcomes they expect
to obtain from MWT because of the different nature of their job;
also they are exposed to external information, which may affect
them in choosing which technology they need. The elaboration
likelihood model (ELM) suggested that external information was a
primary reason that individuals reinvestigated their prior beliefs
and attitudes. Bhattacherjee and Sanford [1] drew on ELM as a
framework to examine the moderating effects of job relevance on
PU and attitude. They claimed that potential users would be
motivated to find out about a technology to help them make an
informed decision on its usefulness.
Venkatesh et al. [22] noted that there was little evidence of a
direct relationship between attitude and intention. Other research
has empirically linked user acceptance to variables similar to Job
Relevance [14], and task-technology fit [9]. Therefore, I contended
that individuals’ perceptions about the relevance of an MWT to
their job would reinforce the relationship between PU and BI
toward the MWT. Thus, I hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4. Job Relevance (JR) moderates the effect of PU on BI
to use MWT.
3.3. Perceived Cost Savings
Costs of a technology have always been a primary consideration
in its adoption. In my study, PCS referred to an individual’s
perception about the way that an MWT provided cost-effective
communication and information exchange. Costs include more
than monetary factors, e.g., time and emotional effort. Indeed, costs
were not found to be significant, in the adoption of mobile wireless
financial services [12]. In my study, PCS includes time and
emotional effort. Palen [17] claimed that MWT allowed businesses
to develop a connection by transcending time and place, providing
ubiquity, reachability, convenience, and localization for indivi-
duals who participated in mobile wireless communication and
service activities. Furthermore, Rogers [20] claimed that decreas-
ing costs and the capability of mobile wireless phones to save time
offered a relative advantage. Therefore, it seems important to
examine how individuals perceived costs when deciding to adopt
MWT. Thus, I proposed:
Hypothesis 5. PCS is positively related to BI to use MWT.
3.4. Company’s Willingness to Fund
Without adequate funding, it is virtually impossible for
individuals, employees, or organizations to adopt and use new
technologies. If funding is available, however, people’s attitudes
and behaviors may change. Therefore, the essential question is,
‘‘Will individuals or employees adopt a new technology if the
company is willing to fund it?’’ CWF is defined here as the degree to
which a company believes that funding would enhance an
individual’s adoption of MWT. A lack of funding has been found
to impede the success of IT adoption. Iacovou et al. [10] found that
organizational readiness affected adoption of technology. How-
389
ever, individuals in a high economic status may not care about
costs and this makes funding unimportant. Also individuals who
are familiar with an older technology may resist change. Thus, I
proposed:
Hypothesis 6. CWF has a positive effect on BI to use MWT.
3.5. Experience as a moderating effect on CWF and BI
The effect of CWF might change with prior experience, the level
of an individual’s satisfaction when adopting prior technology.
Experience has been regarded as important in identifying
individual differences. For example, prior experience with a
similar technology was found to be a major factor influencing
an individual’s attitude in adoption decisions [7]. However, the
positive effect of prior experience weakened over time as the
individual started to understand and evaluate benefits and costs of
the new technology. It was, however, important to look closely at
the effect of prior experience. Thus, to examine a user’s beliefs
concerning BI on MWT, prior experience was considered by
adding:
Hypothesis 7. Experience (E) moderates the effect of CWF on BI to
use MWT.
4. Research methodology
4.1. Study context and sample
An on-line survey was constructed and validated before using it
to test the research model and its hypotheses. An online survey
service was used to solicit 302 questionnaires; 16 of these had to be
discarded because of missing responses and being outside the
context of the study. All participants were working adults. They
represented a racially diverse group with an average age of 32.6,
ranging from about 20 to 55 years old. Sixty two percent of the
respondents were male. Most of the participants (87%) used a
smartphone daily. Demographics of the respondents are shown in
Table 1.
4.2. Measures of the research variables
Items to measure constructs in the model were mainly adopted
from prior research. Some minor wording changes were made for a
smartphone context. New constructs in the model, however, had to
be constructed. For example, the three items to measure PCS were
developed from Parasurman [18] and IS literature on technology
appropriation criteria [4]. Items were modified to measure an
individual’s psychological feeling in reference to his or her
possession of a smartphone. Each individual was asked to indicate
the extent of agreement with statements about the adoption of a
smartphone, using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1)
Strongly Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree for each factor. All items are
shown in Appendix A.
5. Findings and discussion
5.1. Analysis of the measurement model
The measurement model for the constructs was created and
tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). AMOS 5.0 was the
main statistic tool used in the analysis. To demonstrate a
reasonable fit for the model, a number of factors were computed,
including Chi-square/degrees of freedom, Goodness-of-fit Index
390 S.H. Kim / Information & Management 45 (2008) 387–393

Table 1 Table 2
Demographic characteristics Summary of the overall fit indices for measurement models 1 and 2

Demographic categories Frequency Percentage (%) Model NFI GFI AGFI CFI x2/d.f. RMSEA

Age (years) Measurement model 1 0.88 0.81 0.74 0.95 1.40 0.059
20–30 83 29 Measurement model 2 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.97 1.88 0.057
31–40 75 26 Recommended value 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 3.0 0.10
41–50 51 18
51+ 77 27

Gender was based on the revision of 20 items. The summary of the overall
Male 176 62 fit indices for the measurement Models 1 and 2 is shown in Table 2.
Female 110 38
With the values of all indices improved, Model 2 was a better fit for
Race/ethnicity the data than Model 1.
White, Non-Hispanic 119 42
Black 79 28
5.2. Psychometric properties of measures
Hispanic origin, any race 29 10
Asian or Pacific Islander 59 21
After purifying the measurement model, the construct validity
Educational level
was assessed by three measures: item loading, construct
Some high school or less 12 4
Graduate high school 69 24 reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE). If the items
College/University 142 50 had factor loadings greater than 0.5 for their expected factor and
Post-graduate study 53 19 less than 0.4 on the others, then construct validity is demonstrated
Others 10 3
[6]. To test the reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was used. Even when
Occupation there is no set level of alpha being used as a minimum for
Academic 28 10 reliability, the minimum acceptable level of alpha is 0.7 [21]. AVE
Executive 39 14
measures the variance captured by the indicators relative to the
Manager 59 21
Professional 27 9 measurement error, and it should be greater than 0.5 to justify
Self-employed 66 23 using the construct [2]. Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the
MBA student 19 7 convergent and discriminant validity test.
Technician 29 10 All constructs have higher mean scores than that of the average.
Others 19 7
This implied that the respondents considered a smartphone to be
Length of time using a smartphone useful, easy to use, and cost saving in performing the job, and that
<1 year 39 14 they had a positive intention to use the technology, which in turn
1, <2 years 62 22
2, <3 years 86 30
lead to using it.
3 years 99 35 Lastly, the discriminant validity was tested. The latent variables
described the shared variance among the constructs and did not
exceed the AVE. Thus discriminant validity was justified.

(GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit Index
(CFI), and Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA). A very good
fit is normally deemed to exist when GFI and CFI are greater than
0.90 [4], Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA) is around 0.1
[2], and AGFI is greater than 0.80. The chi-square was not used
because it is sensitive to sample size [11]. Thus, the use of relative x2
(x2/d.f.) seemed appropriate; it is assumed that values from less
than 3 to as high as 5 were indicative of an acceptable fit [3].
The indices for the measurement model 1 with all items (23)
showed that the data did not fit well. Some of the indices, such as
GFI (0.81), and AGFI (0.74) were below acceptable levels. The
modification indices indicated that one item (PU4) used to
measure perceived usefulness had a cross-loading issue. This
parameter representing a possible cross-loading of item PU4 on
perceived ease of use stands apart from the rest and accounted for
substantial misspecification of the hypothesized factor loading.
Such misspecification may mean that PU4, in addition to
measuring perceived usefulness, measured PEU. Therefore, the
measurement model was reevaluated by deleting this item.
Furthermore, the first item of perceived usefulness (PU1), and
the first item of perceived ease of use (PEU1) had large residual
values. Therefore, a respecification of Model 1 without these items
was necessary to improve it. Each item was discarded one at a time
and Model 1 was reevaluated.
After discarding three items, the measurement model, Model 2,
was reevaluated; its indices indicated a good fit. NFI (0.93), GFI
(0.93), and CFI (0.97) were all greater than 0.90, AGFT (0.89) was
greater than 0.80, and RMSEA (0.057) was less than 0.10, while the
relative chi-square (1.88) was less than 3. The measurement model
5.3. Analysis of the structural equation model
From the primary data (n = 286), the SEM was examined to test
the relationships between user intention to use mobile wireless
technology and PU, PEU, PCS, and CWF with two moderating
effects: job relevance and experience. I used AMOS 5.0 to analyze
the proposed model. Significant paths were found. As expected,
TAM variables were consistent with previous studies. Additionally,
new variables and two moderating factors had a significant effect
on users’ behavior. Table 5 and Fig. 3 show the results of
hypothesis-testing.
PU was significantly related to an individual’s behavioral
intention to use a smartphone (b = 0.522, p < 0.001). Moreover,
PEU had a significant impact on BI and PU (b = 0.499, p < 0.001,
b = 0.608, p < 0.001, respectively). Finally, BI was significantly
related to actual usage of a smartphone (b = 0.854, p < 0.001).
Thus, H1, 2a and b were supported. Additionally, PEU explained
49.1% of the variance in PU.
Second, job relevance was found to be significant (b = 0.261,
p < 0.05) as a moderator. Therefore, H4 was supported. Job
Relevance made the relationship between perceived usefulness
and users’ behavior strong. As individuals use a smartphone to
perform their job, they feel that the technology is useful, which
affects their positive intention to use it. The respondents were
occupied in various jobs. Therefore, job relevance was an
important factor regardless of occupation in considering the
usefulness of the technology.
Third, respondents agreed that mobile wireless technology was
more cost effective than other technologies in performing their job.
 S.H. Kim / Information & Management 45 (2008) 387–393 391

Table 3
Results of convergent validity and reliability test

Mean S.D. Factor loading Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

Perceived Usefulness 0.97 0.77

Using a smartphone in my job would increase my productivity 4.6 0.86 0.82
I would find a smartphone useful in my job 4.5 0.59 0.73
Using a smartphone would enhance my effectiveness on the job 4.3 0.58 0.87

Perceived Ease of Use 0.88 0.78

I would find a smartphone easy to use 3.7 0.76 0.82
Learning to operate a smartphone would be easy for me 3.8 0.84 0.78
My interaction with a smartphone would be clear and understandable 3.8 0.79 0.84

Behavioral Intention 0.98 0.93

Assuming I have access to a smartphone, I intend to use it 3.9 0.82 0.92
Given that I have access to a smartphone, I predict that I would use it 3.9 0.86 0.95

Actual Usage 0.86 0.79

How many times do you believe you use a smartphone? 4.5 0.88 0.76
How many hours per week do you believe you use a smartphone? 4.1 0.79 0.81
How frequently do you believe you use a smartphone? 4.0 0.83 0.90

Job Relevance 0.89 0.87

In my job, usage of a smartphone is high 4.4 0.82 0.87
In my job, usage of a smartphone is relevant 4.4 0.85 0.89

PCS 0.92 0.77

In my job, I can avoid any unnecessary cost and time by using a smartphone 4.5 0.55 0.72
In my job, the use of a smartphone saves costs related to time and effort 4.6 0.63 0.88
A smartphone is more cost effective than other technologies in my job 4.5 0.62 0.81

Company’s Willingness to Fund 0.80 0.73

In my job, funding from my company is crucial for me because with 4.1 0.71 0.79
new technology, I too often risk paying a lot of money for something that is not worth much
In my job, if a company pays for any cost to use a smartphone, I will definitely use it 4.0 0.70 0.77

Experience 0.90 0.79

I want to see the benefits of a smartphone demonstrated before I buy it 4.5 0.52 0.83
A smartphone provides me with a more efficient and organized tool in my job 4.6 0.59 0.81

Table 4 Thus, H5 was supported (b = 0.324, p < 0.001). Users can perform
Squared inter-correlation among the study constructs
their job without restrictions on time and location—‘‘anytime-and-
Latent construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 anywhere’’ communication and connectivity.
Fourth, the path between CWF and BI was found to be
(1) Perceived Usefulness 0.77
(2) Perceived Ease of Use 0.23 0.78 significant (b = 0.396, p < 0.001). Thus, H6 was supported.
(3) Behavioral Intention 0.36 0.23 0.93 Experience (b = 0.284, p < 0.05) had a significant effect as a
(4) Actual Usage 0.11 0.22 0.21 0.79 moderator of the relationship between CWF and PU, which implied
(5) Job Relevance 0. 19 0.17 0.01 0.32 0.87
that funding becomes a very important factor in deciding user
(6) PCS 0.21 0.33 0.28 0.21 0.25 0.77
(7) CWF 0. 32 0.20 0.15 0. 34 0.33 0.20 0.73
behavior. Therefore, H7 was supported. Finally, BI (b = 0.854,
(8) Experience 0.13 0.29 0.18 0.32 0. 25 0.35 0.16 0.79 p < 0.001) positively affected actual use. All constructs in the
model explained the 62.7% variance in BI which explained the
Note: the bold items on the diagonal represent the square root of the average
variance extracted (AVE).
70.0% variance in actual use. Fig. 3 shows the standardized path
coefficients with their respective significance levels.

Table 5
The results of the tested hypotheses

Hypothesis Effects Path coefficient p-Value

H1 Perceived Usefulness!Behavioral Intention 0.522 <0.001

H2a Perceived Ease of Use!Behavioral Intention 0.499 <0.001
H2b Perceived Ease of Use!Perceived Usefulness 0.608 <0.001
H3 Behavioral Intention!Actual Use 0.854 <0.001

H4 0.261 <0.05

H5 PCS!Behavioral Intention 0.324 <0.001

H6 Company’s Willingness to Fund!Behavioral Intention 0.396 <0.001

H7 0.284 <0.05
392 S.H. Kim / Information & Management 45 (2008) 387–393
Fig. 3. The results of the structure equation model (SEM).
6. Conclusion
6.1. Summary of findings
My study introduced PCS and CWF as factors, which affect the
social effects motivating users considering adoption of MWT. The
data collected supported the overall validity of this model and all
hypotheses were supported. The new constructs explained about
62.7% of the variance in BI. Finally, it explained 70.0% of the
variance in the actual use of MWT.
The findings also supported the new additions and casual
relations in the model. Some relationships in the model were found
to be significant: perceived usefulness (b = 0.522, p < 0.001) and
perceived ease of use (b = 0.499, p < 0.001) continued to have an
impact on a user behavior, and behavioral intention (b = 0.854,
p < 0.001) had a significant impact on the actual use of mobile
wireless technology.
The moderating effect of job relevance was also found to be
significant (b = 0.261, p < 0.05). The effect of this construct has not
been examined in previous studies. In the workplace, individuals
are more willing to adopt a technology that is useful. I also found
that an individual’s intention to use mobile wireless technology
was significantly affected by CWF. A company must, of course,
provide technology to their employees to help them perform their
jobs. Finally, the individuals adopt a technology if it is within their
prior experience, which was found to be significant moderator
between CWF and BI.
6.2. Contributions and implications
My study proposed new constructs and causal relationships in
adopting a new technology, particularly mobile wireless technol-
ogy. The findings help by revealing the effects of new technology
on human attitude and behavior.
6.3. Limitations
This study, however, had several limitations which must be
noted. One is common to all survey research: a possible self-
reporting bias: some of the variables were self-reported. Another
limitation was that some constructs were measured using only two
items; there are some risks in this, particularly in reliability and
validity. However, the two-item scales generally exhibited
adequate reliability: the Cronbach’s Alpha was over 0.79 in all
cases and other results mitigated validity concerns.
Appendix A. Questionnaire Items
Perceived Usefulness
PU1 – Using a smartphone in my job would enable me to
accomplish tasks more quickly.
PU2 – Using a smartphone in my job would increase
my productivity.
PU3 – I would find a smartphone useful in my job.
PU4 – Using a smartphone would improve my job
performance.
PU5 – Using a smartphone would enhance my effectiveness
on the job.
Perceived Ease of Use
 S.H. Kim / Information & Management 45 (2008) 387–393
PEU1 – I would find it easy to get a smartphone to do what I
want it to do.
PEU2 – I would find a smartphone easy to use.
PEU3 – Learning to operate a smartphone would be easy
for me.
PEU4 – My interaction with a smartphone would be clear
and understandable.
Behavioral Intention
BI1 – Assuming I have access to a smartphone, I intend
to use it.
BI2 – Given that I have access to a smartphone, I predict that
I would use it.
Actual Usage
AU1 – How many times do you believe you use a
smartphone?
AU2 – How many hours per week do you believe you
use a smartphone?
AU3 – How frequently do you believe you use a smartphone?
Job Relevance
JR1 – In my job, usage of a smartphone is high.
JR2 – In my job, usage of a smartphone is relevant.
Perceived Cost Savings
PCS1 – In my job, I can avoid any unnecessary cost and
time by using a smartphone.
PCS2 – In my job, the use of a smartphone saves costs related
to time and effort.
PCS3 – A smartphone is more cost effective than other
technologies in my job.
Company’s Willingness to Fund
CWF1 – In my job, funding from my company is crucial
for me because with new technology, I too often risk paying a lot of
money for something that is not worth much.
CWF2 – In my job, if a company pays for any cost to use a
smartphone, I will definitely use it.
Experience
EX1 – I want to see the benefits of a smartphone demonstrated
before I buy it.
EX2 – A smartphone provides me with a more efficient and
organized tool in my job.
References
[1] A. Bhattacherjee, C. Sanford, Influence strategies for information technology
usage: an elaboration-likelihood model, MIS Quarterly 30 (December (4)),
2006, pp. 805–825.
393
[2] M. Browne, R. Cudeck, Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in: K.A. Bollen,
J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
1993 .
[3] E. Carmines, J. McIver, Analyzing models with unobserved variables, in: G.W.
Bohrnstedt, E.F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social Measurement: Current Issues, Sage, Beverly
Hills, 1981.
[4] J. Carroll, S. Howard, J. Peck, J. Murphy, A field study of Perceptions and use of
mobile telephones by 16 to 22 year olds, Journal of Information Technology
Theory and Application 4 (2), 2002, pp. 49–62.
[5] P. Chau, An empirical assessment of a modified Technology Acceptance Model,
Journal of Management Information Systems 13 (2), 1996, pp. 185–203.
[6] W. Cheung, M. Chang, V. Lai, Prediction of Internet and World Wide Web usage at
work: a test of an extended triandis model, Decision Support Systems 30 (1), 2000,
pp. 83–100.
[7] P. Dabholkar, Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service
options: an investigation of alternative models of service quality, International
Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (1), 1996, pp. 29–51.
[8] D.F. Galleta, E.M. Hufnagel, A model of end-user computing policy, context,
process, and content compliance, Information and Management 22 (1), 1992,
pp. 1–8.
[9] D. Goodhue, Understanding the linkage between user evaluations of
systems and the underlying systems, Management Science 41, 1995, pp.
1827–1844.
[10] C. Iacovou, I. Benbasat, A. Dexter, Electronic data interchange and small
organizations: adoption and impact of technology, MIS Quarterly 19 (4),
1995, pp. 465–485.
[11] Y. Iwasaki, Examining rival models of leisure coping mechanisms, Leisure
Sciences 18, 2002, pp. 183–206.
[12] M. Kleijnen, M. Wetzels, K. Ruyter, Consumer acceptance of wireless finance,
Journal of Financial Services Marketing 8 (3), 2004, pp. 206–217.
[13] H. Kwon, L. Chidambaram, A test of the Technology Acceptance Model–the case of
cellular telephone adoption, in: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii Interna-
tional Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE Compute Society, Press, Los
Alamitos, 2000.
[14] D. Leonard-Barton, I. Deschamps, Managerial influence in the implementation of
new technology, Management Science 34 (10), 1988, pp. 1252–1265.
[15] H. Liang, Y. Xue, T. Bryd, PDA usage in healthcare professionals: testing an
extended Technology Acceptance Model, International Journal of Mobile Com-
munications 1 (4), 2003, pp. 372–389.
[16] J. Lu, C. Liu, C. Yu, J. Yao, Exploring factors associated with wireless Internet via
mobile technology acceptance in Mainland China, Communications of the Inter-
national Information Management Association 3, 2003, pp. 101–120.
[17] L. Palen, Mobile telephony in a connected life, Communications of the ACM 45 (3),
2002, pp. 78–82.
[18] A. Parasuraman, Technology readiness index (TRI): a multiple-item scale to
measure readiness to embrace new technologies, Journal of Service Research 2
(4), 2000, pp. 307–320.
[19] P. Pedersen, Adoption of mobile Internet services: an exploratory study of mobile
commerce early adopters, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce 15 (3), 2005, pp. 203–222.
[20] E.M. Roger, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., Free Press, New York, NY, 1995.
[21] T. Teo, V. Lim, R. Lai, Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage, Omega,
International Journal of Management Science 2 (1), 1999, pp. 25–37.
[22] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F. Davis, User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 2003,
pp. 425–478.
[23] J.-H. Wu, S.C. Wang, What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of
the revised technology acceptance model Information and Management 42, 2005,
pp. 719–729.
[24] M.Y. Yi, J.D. Jackson, J.S. Park, J.C. Probst, Understanding information technology
acceptance by individual professionals: toward an integrative view, Information
and Management 43 (3), 2006, pp. 350–363.
Sanghyun Kim is an assistant professor in The School of
Business Administration at Kyungpook National Uni-
versity, Daegu Korea. He earned his Ph.D. from the
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS. His articles have
been published in Information Systems Review, Tech-
Trends, and Journal of Business Research and will be
forthcoming in Information Systems Frontiers. His
research interests include open source software,
ubiquitous technology, and technology adoption.