Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 453

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics: Integrating the “Big 3” of technology acceptance with privacy context

Open access
Lancelot Miltgen, Caroline, Popovič, Aleš, Oliveira, Tiago·2013·Decision Support Systems
DOI 10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The information systems (IS) literature has long emphasized the importance of user acceptance of computer-based IS. Evaluating the determinants of acceptance of information technology (IT) is vital to address the problem of underutilization and leverage the benefits of IT investments, especially for more radical technologies. This study examines individual acceptance of biometric identification techniques in a voluntary environment, measuring the intention to accept and further recommend the technology resulting from a carefully selected set of variables. Drawing on elements of technology acceptance model (TAM), diffusion of innovations (DOI) and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) along with the trust-privacy research field, we propose an integrated approach that is both theoretically and empirically grounded. By testing some of the most relevant and well-tested elements from previous models along with new antecedents to biometric system adoption, this study produces results which are both sturdy and innovative. We first confirm the influence of renowned technology acceptance variables such as compatibility, perceived usefulness, facilitating conditions on biometrics systems acceptance and further recommendation. Second, prior factors such as concern for privacy, trust in the technology, and innovativeness also prove to have an influence. Third, unless innovativeness, the most important drivers to explain biometrics acceptance and recommendation are not from the traditional adoption models (TAM, DOI, and UTAUT) but from the trust and privacy literature (trust in technology and perceived risk). We propose an integrated approach of end-user acceptance of biometric system.The model is based on TAM, DOI and UTAUT along with trust-privacy literature.Technology adoption theory is extended by adding the potential recommendation power.Renowned technology acceptance variables influence acceptance and recommendation.Key drivers of acceptance and recommendation come from the trust-privacy literature.

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 · 10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.010

Cites

29 of 29 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

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Baker, 2010, Cultural impacts on acceptance and adoption of information technology in a developing country, Journal of Global Information Management, 18, 35, 10.4018/jgim.2010070102 · DOI
  2. Beemer, 2010, Dynamic interaction in knowledge based systems: an exploratory investigation and empirical evaluation, Decision Support Systems, 49, 386, 10.1016/j.dss.2010.04.007 · DOI
  3. Bélanger, 2008, Trust and risk in e-government adoption, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 165, 10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Benamati, 2010, Clarifying the integration of trust and TAM in E-commerce environments: implications for systems design and management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57, 380, 10.1109/TEM.2009.2023111 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bhattacherjee, 2008, Information technology continuance: a theoretical extension and empirical test, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49, 17, 10.1080/08874417.2008.11645302 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bigné-Alcañiz, 2008, Influence of online shopping information dependency and innovativeness on internet shopping adoption, Online Information Review, 32, 648, 10.1108/14684520810914025 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Carter, 2005, The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors, Information Systems Journal, 15, 5, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chandra, 2005, Challenges and constraints to the diffusion of biometrics in information systems, Communications of the ACM, 48, 101, 10.1145/1101779.1101784 · DOI
  9. Chen, 2007, Predicting electronic toll collection service adoption: an integration of the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 15, 300, 10.1016/j.trc.2007.04.004 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Cheng, 2011, Exploring radio frequency identification technology's application in international distribution centers and adoption rate forecasting, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 661, 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.10.003 · DOI
  11. Cheng, 2006, Adoption of internet banking: an empirical study in Hong Kong, Decision Support Systems, 42, 1558, 10.1016/j.dss.2006.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Chin, 1998, Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, 22, VII
  13. Chiu, 2010, Antecedents of trust in online auctions, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 148, 10.1016/j.elerap.2009.04.003 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Cho, 2009, A multinational study on online privacy: global concerns and local responses, New Media & Society, 11, 395, 10.1177/1461444808101618 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Clodfelter, 2010, Biometric technology in retailing: will consumers accept fingerprint authentication?, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 181, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.03.007 · DOI
  16. Deane, 1995, Perceived acceptability of biometric security systems, Computer Security, 14, 225, 10.1016/0167-4048(95)00005-S · doi:10.1016/0167-4048(95)00005-s
  17. Dishaw, 1999, Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs, Information Management, 36, 9, 10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00101-3 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Djamasbi, 2010, Affect and acceptance: examining the effects of positive mood on the technology acceptance model, Decision Support Systems, 48, 383, 10.1016/j.dss.2009.10.002 · DOI
  19. Eastlick, 1999, Profiling potential adopters and non-adopters of an interactive electronic shopping medium, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 27, 209, 10.1108/09590559910278560 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Eisenstein, 2008, Identity theft: an exploratory study with implications for marketers, Journal of Business Research, 61, 1160, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.012 · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.012
  21. Elliot, 2000, Expectations versus reality: a snapshot of consumer experiences with internet retailing, International Journal of Information Management, 20, 323, 10.1016/S0268-4012(00)00026-8 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Fornell, 1981, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39, 10.2307/3151312 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Goldsmith, 1992, Identifying innovators in consumer product markets, European Journal of Marketing, 26, 42, 10.1108/03090569210022498 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Grijpink, 2006, An assessment model for the use of biometrics, Computer Law & Security Review, 22, 316, 10.1016/j.clsr.2006.03.007 · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2006.03.007
  25. Gwebu, 2011, Adoption of open source software: the role of social identification, Decision Support Systems, 51, 220, 10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.010 · DOI
  26. Hartog, 2008, Biometrics at the turnstiles, Computer Weekly, 156, 20
  27. Hsu, 2004, Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience, Information Management, 41, 853, 10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hung, 2006, Determinants of user acceptance of the e-Government services: the case of online tax filing and payment system, Government Information Quarterly, 23, 97, 10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.005 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Im, 2011, An international comparison of technology adoption: testing the UTAUT model, Information Management, 48, 1, 10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Jarvenpaa, 1999, Communication and trust in global virtual teams, Organization Science, 10, 791, 10.1287/orsc.10.6.791 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Kim, 2010, An empirical examination of factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 310, 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.013 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Koenig-Lewis, 2010, Predicting young consumers' take up of mobile banking services, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 28, 410, 10.1108/02652321011064917 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Kumar, 2008, Locking the door but leaving the computer vulnerable: factors inhibiting home users' adoption of software firewalls, Decision Support Systems, 46, 254, 10.1016/j.dss.2008.06.010 · DOI
  34. Kuo, 2009, Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use 3G mobile value-added services, Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 103, 10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Laux, 2011, Adoption of biometric authentication systems: implications for research and practice in the deployment of end-user security systems, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 21, 221, 10.1080/10919392.2011.590111 · DOI
  36. Lee, 2009, Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8, 130, 10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Lee, 2009, Predicting and explaining the adoption of online trading: an empirical study in Taiwan, Decision Support Systems, 47, 133, 10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Lee, 2011, Understanding the dynamics of users' belief in software application adoption, International Journal of Information Management, 31, 160, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.07.009 · DOI
  39. López-Nicolás, 2008, An assessment of advanced mobile services acceptance: contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models, Information Management, 45, 359, 10.1016/j.im.2008.05.001 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Lucas, 2005, Biometrics come into focus, American Banker, 10, 18
  41. Luo, 2010, Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: an empirical study of mobile banking services, Decision Support Systems, 49, 222, 10.1016/j.dss.2010.02.008 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Moe, 2012, Online product opinions: incidence, evaluation, and evolution, Marketing Science, 31, 372, 10.1287/mksc.1110.0662 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Morosan, 2012, Theoretical and empirical considerations of guests' perceptions of biometric systems in hotels: extending the technology acceptance model, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 36, 52, 10.1177/1096348010380601 · DOI
  44. Ng-Kruelle, 2006, Biometrics and e-identity (e-passport) in the European Union: end-user perspectives on the adoption of a controversial innovation, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 1, 12, 10.3390/jtaer1020010 · doi:10.3390/jtaer1020010
  45. Orlikowski, 2001, Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research — a call to theorizing the IT artifact, Information Systems Research, 12, 121, 10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Pons, 2008, Understanding user perspectives on biometric technology, Communications of the ACM, 51, 115, 10.1145/1378727.1389971 · DOI
  47. Rifon, 2005, Your privacy is sealed: effects of web privacy seals on trust and personal disclosures, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39, 339, 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00018.x · DOI · Paper page
  48. Roca, 2010, Personal innovativeness, security and privacy as determinants of e-trading adoption, International Journal of Electronic Finance, 4, 269, 10.1504/IJEF.2010.034033 · DOI
  49. Scott, 2005, An assessment of biometric identities as a standard for e-government services, International Journal of Services and Standards, 1, 271, 10.1504/IJSS.2005.005800 · doi:10.1504/ijss.2005.005800
  50. Seddon, 1997, A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success, Information Systems Research, 8, 240, 10.1287/isre.8.3.240 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Shaikh, 2010, Characteristic trade-offs in designing large-scale biometric-based identity management systems, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 33, 342, 10.1016/j.jnca.2009.12.015 · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2009.12.015
  52. Shen, 2010, The impact of perceived ease of use on internet service adoption: the moderating effects of temporal distance and perceived risk, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 42, 10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.003 · DOI
  53. Srivastava, 2009, Electronic signatures and security issues: an empirical study, Computer Law & Security Review, 25, 432, 10.1016/j.clsr.2009.05.007 · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2009.05.007
  54. Thiesse, 2007, RFID, privacy and the perception of risk: a strategic framework, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16, 214, 10.1016/j.jsis.2007.05.006 · DOI
  55. Uludag, 2004, Biometric cryptosystems: issues and challenges, Proceedings of the IEEE, 92, 948, 10.1109/JPROC.2004.827372 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Uzoka, 2009, Fuzzy-expert system for cost benefit analysis of enterprise information systems: a framework, International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, 1, 254
  57. Venkatesh, 2001, A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges, MIS Quarterly, 71, 10.2307/3250959 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Venkatesh, 2000, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, 186, 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Wang, 2008, Assessing eGovernment systems success: a validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success, Government Information Quarterly, 25, 717, 10.1016/j.giq.2007.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Warshaw, 1985, Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 213, 10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Wolfe, 2008, User milestone for a biometric system, American Banker, 173
  62. Wu, 2005, An extension of Trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: an empirical study, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 62, 784, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Wu, 2009, A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in information technology acceptance, MIS Quarterly, 33, 419, 10.2307/20650298 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Wu, 2011, The adoption of mobile healthcare by hospital's professionals: an integrative perspective, Decision Support Systems, 51, 587, 10.1016/j.dss.2011.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Yousafzai, 2010, Explaining internet banking behavior: theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, or technology acceptance model?, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1172, 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00615.x · DOI · Paper page
  66. Yu, 2012, Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: empirical evidence from the UTAUT model, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13, 104
  67. Zhou, 2010, Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 760, 10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.013 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 453

Metadata

Authors
Lancelot Miltgen, C., Popovič, A., & Oliveira, T.
Venue
Decision Support Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
56
Pages
103-114
ISSN
0167-9236 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.010
OpenAlex
W2049907830
Cited by
453
References
29
FWCI
21.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics: Integrating the “Big 3” of technology acceptance with privacy context. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.010
The paper
Lancelot Miltgen, C., Popovič, A., & Oliveira, T. (2013). Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics: Integrating the “Big 3” of technology acceptance with privacy context. Decision Support Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.010

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.