The DOI matches its Crossref record; 138 of the 139 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes
Abstract
This research investigated gender differences in the overlooked context of individual adoption and sustained usage of technology in the workplace using the theory of planned behavior (TPB). User reactions and technology usage behavior were studied over a 5-month period among 355 workers being introduced to a new software technology application. When compared to women's decisions, the decisions of men were more strongly influenced by their attitude toward using the new technology. In contrast, women were more strongly influenced by subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. Sustained technology usage behavior was driven by early usage behavior, thus fortifying the lasting influence of gender-based early evaluations of the new technology. These findings were robust across income, organization position, education, and computer self-efficacy levels. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The independent variables selected for the model were chosen based on a priori theoretical considerations [49–51] and underwent rigorous evaluation for multicollinearity”
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
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
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
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Self-citationFrom Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
(1968) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 15,136
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hodgson, 1987, Gender-integrated management teams, Business Quarterly, 52, 68
- Thoits, 1987, Gender and marital status differences in control and employment, Monthly Labor Review, 114, 10
Cited by
Sorted by citations
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-citationVenkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
Self-citationMalhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597 · Cited by 3,329
The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.01250 · Cited by 2,572
How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance1
Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148817 · Cited by 2,450
Metadata
- Authors
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-60
- ISSN
- 0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2118816802
- Cited by
- 1,237
- References
- 139
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 60
- FWCI
- 30.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- gender differences, technology adoption, theory of planned behavior, workplace technology, attitudes toward technology, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, user response, computer self-efficacy
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
