The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictors of customer acceptance of and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector
Open accessAbstract
Abstract In recent decades, rapid advances in Internet technology have led to numerous innovative smart technologies. This research investigates the customer acceptance of and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector, by integrating the literature on technology acceptance model, system characteristics, technology readiness, and store reputation. Data were collected using a quantitative survey and analysed using symmetrical PLS path modelling and asymmetrical fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Results show complex relationships among perceived technology readiness, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, superior functionality, perceived adaptiveness, and store reputation in determining customers’ attitudes and behavioural intentions towards smart retail technologies. The findings also show that technology readiness does not directly affect customer attitude but does indirectly through perceived innovation characteristics. The findings indicate that retail stores should focus on smart technologies that are simple, yet offer enhanced customer value through improved shopping efficiency. Findings also suggest that retail stores can engage in brand management strategies to improve customers’ acceptance of smart technologies.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
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
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
From 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
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach
Kock, N. (2015) · International Journal of e-Collaboration · doi:10.4018/ijec.2015100101 · Cited by 10,215
Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 · Cited by 8,490
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159 · cited 1×
“…system characteristics, individual differences, facilitating conditions, consumer traits and organisation characteristics as exogenous variables of the TAM model (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Kwee-Meier et al., 2016; Gelderman et al., 2011; Rosenbaum and Wong, 2015; Purohit and Srivastava, 2001).”
BackgroundAn assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6 · Cited by 8,088
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Bous, 2010, ACUTA: a novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 206, 435, 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.009 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.009
- Chin, 1999, Structural equation modelling analysis with small samples using partial least squares, Stat. Strateg. Small Sample Res., 2, 307
Cited by
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250981 · Cited by 2,780
Al-Adwan, A. S., Li, N., Al-Adwan, A., Abbasi, G. A., Albelbisi, N. A., & Habibi, A. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11816-3 · Cited by 637
“Research - ers might possibly foster effective technology adoption and facilitate the adoption of novel technological innovation by examining the factors driving resistance (Roy et al., 2018).”
BackgroundChatbots in retailers’ customer communication: How to measure their acceptance?
Rese, A., Ganster, L., & Baier, D. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102176 · Cited by 412
Liao, Y.-K., Wu, W.-Y., Le, T. Q., & Phung, T. T. T. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14020815 · Cited by 123
Feng, W., Tu, R., Lu, T., & Zhou, Z. (2019) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1557745 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Roy, S. K., Balaji, M. S., Quazi, A., & Quaddus, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 42
- Pages
- 147-160
- ISSN
- 0969-6989 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2792159113
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 75
- FWCI
- 36.61
- 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: Predictors of customer acceptance of and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.02.005
- The paper
- Roy, S. K., Balaji, M. S., Quazi, A., & Quaddus, M. (2018). Predictors of customer acceptance of and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.02.005
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.
