The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: The TRAM model
Abstract
Based on previous theoretical streams, the present study integrates technology readiness (TR) into the technology acceptance model (TAM) in the context of consumer adoption of e‐service systems, and theorizes that the impact of TR on use intention is completely mediated by both perceptions of usefulness and ease of use. TAM was originally developed to predict people's technology‐adopting behavior at work environments, but this research stemmed from a questioning of its applicability in marketing (i.e., non‐work) settings. The differences between the two settings are exhibited by consumers' self‐determining selection behavior and their high involvement in the e‐service creation and delivery process. This paper first reviews the TAM and the construct of technology readiness, and then proposes and empirically tests an integrated Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model (TRAM) to augment TAM by taking technology readiness construct into the realm of consumers' adoption of innovations. The results indicate that TRAM substantially broadens the applicability and the explanatory power of either of the prior models and may be a better way to gauge technology adoption in situations where adoption is not mandated by organizational objectives. Further, theoretical and practical implications and future research directions are discussed. © 2007 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
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
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
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models
Sobel, M. E. (1982) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/270723 · Cited by 12,810
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
(2003) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275 · Cited by 5,715
A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x · Cited by 3,802
Parasuraman, A. (2000) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/109467050024001 · Cited by 3,328
Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070302303001 · Cited by 1,898
Cited by
An Updated and Streamlined Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0
Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. L. (2015) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670514539730 · Cited by 1,440
Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology
Kulviwat, S., Bruner II, G. C., Kumar, A., Nasco, S. A., & Clark, T. (2007) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20196 · Cited by 486
Huang, T.-L., & Liao, S. (2015) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-014-9163-2 · Cited by 476
Tiwari, C. K., Bhat, M. A., Khan, S. T., Subramaniam, R., & Khan, M. A. I. (2024) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-04-2023-0061 · Cited by 315
Autry, C. W., Grawe, S. J., Daugherty, P. J., & Richey, R. G. (2010) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.03.001 · Cited by 291
Metadata
- Authors
- Lin, C., Shih, H., & Sher, P. J.
- Venue
- Psychology & Marketing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05-24
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 641-657
- ISSN
- 0742-6046 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6793
- OpenAlex
- W2040467573
- Cited by
- 857
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 35.40
- 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.