Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 869

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation

Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D.F.·2003·Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers
DOI 10.1109/hicss.1999.772658
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) represents an important theoretical contribution toward understanding IS usage and IS acceptance behaviors. However, as noted by several IS researchers, TAM is incomplete in one important respect: it doesn't account for social influence in the adoption and utilization of new information systems. Davis (1986) and Davis et al. (1989) noted that it is important to account for subjective norm (SN), the construct denoting social influence. However, they observed that the conceptualization of SN based on TRA (Theory of Reasoned Action) has theoretical and psychometric problems. Specifically, they observed that it is difficult to distinguish if usage behavior is caused by the influence of referents on one's intent or by one's own attitude. They suggested that this problem may be circumvented by using an alternative theoretical basis for conceptualizing SN, specifically in terms of Kelman's (1958, 1961) processes of social influence (compliance, identification and internalization). Within the context of organizational enterprisewide implementation and adoption of collaboration and communication technologies, this study establishes theoretical and empirical bases for the above conceptualization originally suggested by Davis and his colleagues. The construct of social influence is operationalized in terms of Kelman's processes of internalization, identification and compliance. Analyses of field study data provide evidence of the reliability and validity of the proposed constructs, factor structures and measures. The findings enable future researchers to account for social influence in further investigating TAM.

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 · 10.1109/hicss.1999.772658

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F.
Venue
Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers
Publisher
IEEE Comput. Soc
Published
2003-01-20
Pages
14
ISSN
1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/hicss.1999.772658
OpenAlex
W2144283632
Cited by
869
References
6
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.