Cited by 187Technology Adoption and User BehaviourAI in Service InteractionsCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty

Is it the end of the technology acceptance model in the era of generative artificial intelligence?

Open access
Mogaji, Emmanuel, Viglia, Giampaolo, Srivastava, Pallavi, Dwivedi, Yogesh K.·2024·International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

Abstract

Purpose: The technology acceptance model (TAM) is a widely used framework explaining why users accept new technologies. Still, its relevance is questioned because of evolving consumer behavior, demographics and technology. Contrary to a research paper or systematic literature review, the purpose of this critical reflection paper is to discuss TAM's relevance and limitations in hospitality and tourism research. Design/methodology/approach: This paper uses a critical reflective approach, enabling a comprehensive review and synthesis of recent academic literature on TAM. The critical evaluation encompasses its historical trajectory, evolutionary growth, identified limitations and, more specifically, its relevance in the context of hospitality and tourism research. Findings: TAM's limitations within the hospitality and tourism context revolve around its individual-centric perspective, limited scope, static nature, cultural applicability and reliance on self-reported measures. Research limitations/implications: To optimize TAM's efficacy, the authors propose several strategic recommendations. These include embedding TAM within the specific context of the industry, delving into TAM-driven artificial intelligence adoption, integrating industry-specific factors, acknowledging cultural nuances and using comprehensive research methods, such as mixed methods approach. It is imperative for researchers to critically assess TAM's suitability for their studies and be open to exploring alternative models or methods that can adeptly navigate the distinctive dynamics of the industry. Originality/value: This critical reflection paper prompts a profound exploration of technology adoption within the dynamic hospitality and tourism sector, makes insightful inquiries into TAM's future potential and presents recommendations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/ijchm-08-2023-1271

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mogaji, E., Viglia, G., Srivastava, P., & Dwivedi, Y. K.
Affiliations
  • Keele University (GB)
  • University of Portsmouth (GB)
  • Jaipuria Institute of Management (IN)
  • Symbiosis International University (IN)
Corresponding author
Dwivedi, Yogesh K.
Venue
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2024-01-18
Volume
36
Issue
10
Pages
3324-3339
ISSN
0959-6119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390953986
Cited by
187
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 93 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 31
FWCI
69.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (publishedVersion)
  • Cronfa (Swansea University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
Keywords
technology acceptance model, generative AI, technology adoption, hospitality industry, tourism industry, self-report measures, mixed methods

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