CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 157Technology Adoption and User BehaviourInnovative Human-Technology InteractionGender and Technology in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting the use of online information services based on a modified UTAUT model

Oh, Jong-Chul, Yoon, Sung-Joon·2014·Behaviour & Information Technology
DOI 10.1080/0144929x.2013.872187
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is a growing consensus that the conventional technology acceptance model should be modified and expanded to provide a better understanding of the behaviour related to Internet services. Recognising this need, this study re-evaluates the utility of Venkatesh et al.’s [2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425–478] Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. First, this study proposes a new modified model of technology acceptance by adding the concepts of trust and flow experience to the original UTAUT model. Second, the study investigates how the model's explanatory power changes for different types of Internet services. For this, this study considers two services – ‘e-learning’ and ‘online gaming’ – for their utilitarian and hedonic characteristics, respectively. The results of this study suggest that the proposed model can better explain behavioural intentions towards Internet services than the original model. The two variables – flow experience and trust – contributed to the overall significance of the model. Furthermore, the type of Internet service moderated the effects of the independent variables on behavioural intentions and use behaviour.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0144929x.2013.872187

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Chang J., 2004, Korean Journal of MIS, 14, 94
  2. Park S., 2005, Korean Journal of Marketing, 20, 21
  3. Pavlou P.A., 2003, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7, 69
  4. Zhou T., 2011, Behavior & Information Technology, 32, 163

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–157 of 157

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Oh, J.-C., & Yoon, S.-J.
Affiliations
  • Shin Ansan University (KR)
  • Kyonggi University (KR)
Corresponding author
Yoon, Sung-Joon
ORCID
Yoon, Sung-Joon
Venue
Behaviour & Information Technology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-04-07
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
716-729
ISSN
  • 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-3001
DOI
10.1080/0144929x.2013.872187
OpenAlex
W1990390924
Cited by
157
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
UTAUT, technology acceptance, online information services, trust, flow experience, online learning, online games, behavioral intention

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