The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of three models to explain shop‐bot use on the web
Abstract
An ongoing requirement in the 21st century is that marketers must understand the impact of the network economy on buyer behavior. Although new models will certainly be developed, it seems reasonable that existing models of buyer behavior will still apply. This study uses structural‐equations modeling to test if three popular models of behavioral intent—the theory of reasoned action, the theory of planned behavior, and the technology acceptance model—work in a network context. It recommends the technology‐acceptance model as superior to the others in the current network context, and also shows how to check and account for the presence of common method bias in a single source instrument. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
AGE DIFFERENCES IN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION DECISIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR A CHANGING WORK FORCE
MORRIS, M. G., & VENKATESH, V. (2000) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x · Cited by 1,723
Cited by
A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003 · Cited by 2,906
Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward online food delivery (OFD) services
Yeo, V. C. S., Goh, S.-K., & Rezaei, S. (2017) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.12.013 · Cited by 956
Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research.
University of Arkansas, Venkatesh, V., Davis, F., University of Arkansas, Morris, M., & University of Virginia (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00120 · Cited by 789
Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007) · Journal of Modelling in Management · doi:10.1108/17465660710834453 · Cited by 624
Predicting consumer intentions to shop online: An empirical test of competing theories
Lin, H.-F. (2007) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.02.002 · Cited by 435
Metadata
- Authors
- Gentry, L., & Calantone, R.
- Venue
- Psychology & Marketing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 945-956
- ISSN
- 0742-6046 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6793
- OpenAlex
- W2085645634
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
