Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 752

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toward an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System

Jackson, Cynthia M., Chow, Simeon, Leitch, Robert A.·1997·Decision Sciences
DOI 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01315.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Organizational investment in information systems is often large and risky given the variety of information requirements placed on systems today. To make more informed decisions and to meet the challenge of developing systems that satisfy these demands, system developers need to achieve a better understanding of factors that ultimately lead to system usage. To enhance this understanding, we posit a holistic framework to examine several constructs suggested in the literature that lead to the behavioral intention to use an information system. Our framework includes situational involvement, intrinsic involvement, argument for change, perceived usefulness, ease of use, prior usage, and attitude constructs. We extend the Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which is founded on the Theory of Reasoned Action. A diverse sample from industry is used to test our model. Structural equation modeling is used to examine the entire pattern of intercorrelations among the constructs and to test related propositions. A hierarchical structure is used to compare the explanatory ability of TAM with our extension. Our model explains a large portion of the covariance among the constructs that lead to a user's behavioral intention to use an information system and compares favorably with TAM. The results indicate that (1) the direct effect of situational involvement on behavioral intention as well as attitude is significant in the negative direction, (2) attitude seems to play a mediating role, and (3) intrinsic involvement plays a significant role in shaping perceptions. Finally, we conclude that the user involvement construct needs to be separated into its psychological as well as its participative components for developers to understand its impact on the systems development process.

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 · 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01315.x

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A.
Venue
Decision Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-04
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
357-389
ISSN
  • 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5915
DOI
10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01315.x
OpenAlex
W2034338878
Cited by
752
References
10
FWCI
15.63
Type
journal article
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.