A Meta-analysis of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Effort expectancy is the second most impactful factor, whereas social influence and facilitating conditions fulfill more context-dependent roles.
“Effort expectancy, also termed perceived ease of use, is the second most impactful factor, whereas social influence and facilitating conditions fulfill more contextdependent roles (Dwivedi et al., 2011).”
From A Multi-Dimensional Decision Framework for Evaluating and Selecting AI-Enabled Instructional Technology in U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Dwivedi et al., 2011
Performance expectancy and effort expectancy are the foremost predictors of behavioral intention among faculty and students to adopt AI tools.
“The findings indicate that performance expectancy and effort expectancy are the foremost predictors of behavioral intention among faculty and students to adopt AI tools.”
From A Multi-Dimensional Decision Framework for Evaluating and Selecting AI-Enabled Instructional Technology in U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Dwivedi et al., 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 53 · Cited by 312
- Authors
- Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Chen, H., & Williams, M. D.
- Affiliations
- Swansea University (GB)
- University of Bedfordshire (GB)
- Venue
- IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology
- Publisher
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- AICT-366
- Pages
- 155-170
- ISSN
- 1571-5736 (ISSN-L)
- 1868-4238
- 1861-2288
- OpenAlex
- W68469067
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 13.90
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- inria.hal.science
- Licence
- Locations
- IFIP International Federation for Information Processing/IFIP (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Keywords
- Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, UTAUT, technology acceptance, citation analysis, information systems research, information technology adoption
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
