Cited by 937Technology Adoption and User BehaviourInnovative Human-Technology InteractionKnowledge Management and Sharing

Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook

Rauniar, Rupak, Rawski, Greg, Yang, Jei, Johnson, Ben·2014·Journal of Enterprise Information Management

Abstract

Purpose – Given the widespread popularity of social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and LinkedIn, theorizing and understanding the user attitude and usage behavior of social media site is fundamental in developing future understandings and deployment of these new technologies. One approach to such studies on drivers of social media usage behavior would be to revisit the technology acceptance model (TAM). The purpose of this paper is to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Decades of extensive research have focussed on validating the TAM, proposed by Davis (1986), for various types of information systems and communication technologies. TAM forecasts individual adoption and voluntary use of technology. This study examines individual adoption behavior of the most popular social networking site Facebook. The influences on the intention of using social networking based on individual's perceived ease of use (EU), the user's critical mass (CM), social networking site capability (CP), perceived playfulness (PP), trustworthiness (TW), and perceived usefulness (PU) is empirically examined with a primary data set of 398 users of Facebook gathered from a web-based questionnaire survey. Findings – The results demonstrate that the revised social media TAM model proposed in this study supports all the hypotheses of social media usage behavior. The results of this study provide evidence for the importance of additional key variables to TAM in considering user engage…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jeim-04-2012-0011

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University-Victoria (US)
  • University of Evansville (US)
Venue
Journal of Enterprise Information Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2014-02-04
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
6-30
ISSN
1741-0398 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019089262
Cited by
937
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 132 · 2022: 127 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 6
FWCI
65.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Enterprise Information Management (publishedVersion)
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 › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
technology acceptance model, social media use, Facebook, social networking sites, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, trustworthiness, perceived playfulness, critical mass, social media adoption, user intention, user engagement

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