Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 495

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation

Ghazizadeh, Mahtab, Lee, John D., Boyle, Linda Ng·2012·Cognition, Technology & Work
DOI 10.1007/s10111-011-0194-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10111-011-0194-3

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Adamson I, Shine J (2003) Extending the new Technology Acceptance Model to measure the end user information systems satisfaction in a mandatory environment: a bank’s treasury. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 15(4):441–455 · DOI
  2. Andre AD, Wickens CD (1995) When users want what’s not best for them. Ergon Des Q Hum Factors Appl 3(4):10–14 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bailey RW (1993) Performance versus preference. In: Proceedings of human factors and Ergonomics society 37th annual meeting, pp 282–286 · DOI
  4. Bernheim BD (1994) A theory of conformity. J Polit Econ 102(5):841–877 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Brown SA, Massey AP, Montoya-Weiss MM, Burkman JR (2002) Do I really have to? user acceptance of mandated technology. Eur J Inf Syst 11(4):283–295 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Carter L, Bélanger F (2005) The utilization of e government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Inf Syst J 15(1):5–25 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chen CF, Chen PC (2011) Applying the TAM to travelers’ usage intentions of GPS devices. Expert Syst Appl 38:6217–6221 · DOI
  8. Davis FD, Venkatesh V (1996) A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the Technology Acceptance Model: three experiments. Int J Hum Comput Stud 45(1):19–45 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8):982–1003 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Dishaw MT, Strong DM (1998) Experience as a moderating variable in a task-technology fit model. In: Proceedings of fourth Americas conference on information systems, pp 722–724
  11. Dishaw MT, Strong DM (1999) Extending the Technology Acceptance Model with task-technology fit constructs. Inf Manag 36(1):9–21 · DOI · Paper page
  12. El Jaafari M, Forzy JF, Navarro J, Mars F, Hoc JM (2008) User acceptance and effectiveness of warning and motor priming assistance devices in car driving. In: Proceedings of European conference on human centred design for intelligent transport systems, pp 311–320
  13. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
  14. Flach JM, Vicente KJ, Tanabe F, Monta K, Rasmussen J (1998) An ecological approach to interface design. In: Proceedings of the human factors and Ergonomics society 42nd annual meeting, vol 42, pp 295–299 · DOI
  15. Gao J, Lee JD (2006) Extending the decision field theory to model operators’ reliance on automation in supervisory control situations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 36(5):943–959 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gao J, Lee JD, Zhang Y (2006) A dynamic model of interaction between reliance on automation and cooperation in multi-operator multi-automation situations. Int J Ind Ergon 36(5):511–526 · DOI
  17. Goodrich MA, Boer ER (2003) Model-based human-centered task automation: a case study in ACC system design. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 33(3):325–336 · DOI
  18. Gray WD, Boehm-Davis DA (2000) Milliseconds matter: an introduction to microstrategies and to their use in describing and predicting interactive behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl 6(4):322 · DOI
  19. Guinan PJ, Cooprider JG, Sawyer S (2010) The effective use of automated application development tools. IBM Syst J 36(1):124–139 · DOI
  20. Hartwick J, Barki H (1994) Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Manag Sci 40(4):440–465 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Hollnagel E, Woods DD (1983) Cognitive systems engineering: new wine in new bottles. Int J Man Mach Stud 18(6):583–600 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hollnagel E, Woods DD (2005) Joint cognitive systems: foundations of cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton · DOI · Paper page
  23. Inagaki T (2003) Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. Handbook of cognitive task design 147–169 · DOI
  24. Inagaki T (2006) Design of human–machine interactions in light of domain-dependence of human-centered automation. Cognit Technol Work 8(3):161–167 · DOI
  25. Inagaki T, Itoh M, Nagai Y (2007) Support by warning or by action: which is appropriate under mismatches between driver intent and traffic conditions? IEICE Trans Fundam Electron Commun Comput Sci 90(11):2540 · DOI
  26. Inagaki T, Itoh M, Nagai Y (2008) Driver support functions under resource-limited situations. J Mech Syst Transp Logist 1(2):213–222 · DOI
  27. Jackson CM, Chow S, Leitch RA (1997) Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decis Sci 28(2):357–389 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Karahanna E, Straub DW, Chervany NL (1999) Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q 23(2):183–213 · DOI
  29. Karahanna E, Agarwal R, Angst CM (2006) Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Q 30(4):781–804 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Karvonen K, Parkkinen J (2001) Signs of trust: a semiotic study of trust formation in the Web. In: Smith MJ, Salvendy G, Harris D, Koubek RJ (eds) First international conference on universal Access in human-computer interaction, vol 1. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 1076–1080
  31. Kim SS, Malhotra NK (2005) A longitudinal model of continued IS use: an integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Manag Sci 51(5):741–755 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Kim J, Moon JY (1998) Designing towards emotional usability in customer interfaces–trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces. Interact Comput 10(1):1–29 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Lee J, Moray N (1992) Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10):1243–1270 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Lee JD, Moray N (1994) Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 40(1):153 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2003) Why do people use information technology? a critical review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Inf Manag 40(3):191–204 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Leonard-Barton D (1988) Implementation characteristics of organizational innovations: limits and opportunities for management strategies. Commun Res 15(5):603–631 · DOI
  37. Moray N, Inagaki T, Itoh M (2000) Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. J Exp Psychol Appl 6(1):44 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Muir BM (1987) Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. Int J Man Mach Stud 27(5–6):527–539 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Navarro J, Mars F, Forzy JF, El-Jaafari M, Hoc JM (2010) Objective and subjective evaluation of motor priming and warning systems applied to lateral control assistance. Accid Anal Prev 42(3):904–912 · DOI
  40. Nielsen J, Levy J (1994) Measuring usability: preference versus performance. Commun ACM 37(4):66–75 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2008) Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. J Cognit Eng Decis Mak 2(2):140–160 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Rawstorne P, Jayasuriya R, Caputi P (1998) An integrative model of information systems use in mandatory environments. In: Proceedings of the nineteenth international conference on information systems, pp 325–330
  43. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York
  44. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. The Free Press, New York
  45. Roth EM, Bennett KB, Woods DD (1987) Human interaction with an” intelligent” machine. Int J Man-Mach Stud 27(5–6):479–525 · DOI
  46. Rotter JB (1980) Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. Am Psychol 35(1):1–7 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Sarter NB, Woods DD, Billings CE (1997) Automation surprises. Handbook Hum Fact Ergon 2:1926–1943
  48. Scerbo MW (1996) Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. In: Parasuraman R, Mouloua M (eds) Automation and human performance: theory and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, pp 37–63
  49. Seppelt BD, Lee JD (2007) Making adaptive cruise control (ACC) limits visible. Int J Hum Comput Stud 65(3):192–205 · DOI
  50. Sheridan TB (1992) Telerobotics, automation and human supervisory control. The MIT press, Cambridge
  51. Sheridan TB, Verplank WL (1978) Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Tech Rep MIT Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Cambridge, MA · DOI · Paper page
  52. Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM (1994) Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: testing a conceptual model. J Manag Inf Syst 11(1):167–187 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Van Der Laan JD, Heino A, De Waard D (1997) A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp Res C Emerg Technol 5(1):1–10 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Xu C, Wang W, Chen J, Wang W, Yang C, Li Z (2010) Analyzing travelers’ intention to accept travel information: structural equation modeling. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2156:93–110 · DOI

Cited by

See all 495

Metadata

Authors
Ghazizadeh, M., Lee, J. D., & Boyle, L. N.
Venue
Cognition, Technology & Work
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-10-11
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
39-49
ISSN
  • 1435-5558 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5566
DOI
10.1007/s10111-011-0194-3
OpenAlex
W1985926185
Cited by
495
References
19
FWCI
6.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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.